# Are people in expensive areas considering renting to mulitple people per room?



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

When I was browsing rentals in Vancouver I noticed more and more people doing this. They often are rather coy in the ad, not directly stating what they're doing. The vast majority are young East Indians, often in school. Obviously the parents have bought the house and they may or may not be living in Canada with them. They typically have a renovated house that looks nicely up to date and in good condition, and usually in a lousier area like Surrey, New West, East Van, etc, where pricing is less ludicrous. They aim for their own culture for renters probably so communication is better. Understandable. 

The point is as land prices escalate into the stratosphere in very high demand places like Vancouver and Toronto, people are finding it impossible to meet their mortgage payments without being more innovative and squeezing more people into their space. I noticed pricing to be generally about 60% more if the room was single than shared by another. Some are really pushing it and putting in 4 or more people in a room. That sure takes some major tolerance and cooperation! So if a bedroom for 1 person would be $800 it might be $500-600 each for 2 people or $300-400 each for 4. 

The key to this working is organizing the space for the tenants very well. This is not easy! Beds are huge space wasters. I have many ideas how to deal with this but none are conventional and would meet with a lot of resistance from most renters. 

But how else do you pay for your mortgage without dipping into your income? We can't have that! For those that want to pay off their mortgage in less than 10 years it becomes a huge undertaking when you only have say 4 bedrooms to rent and the house costs over a million. The math just doesn't work. You can convert the living/dining/laundry/rec rooms to bedrooms of course and this helps immensely - actually its the only way to make it work without cramming people like sardines into the bedrooms. Basement renovation helps a lot, especially if you can use egress entrances so no hallways take up space. People always pay more for a private entrance. 

And all this has to conform to zoning laws!

UPDATE June 11, 2021: I should have clarified that either one can rerent a house or do this when you own the house. Obviously if you own the house there are no "landlord permissions" hurdles one needs to jump through, just zoning laws. For most people it would be best to ease into this gradually. Say you're renting an apartment and share it with a roommate which many of us have done. You've living pretty expensively if you've gotten a good deal for the apartment and you may be charging more than your share of the rent to your roommates, often because you've opted for the smallest bedroom. So you're learning about sacrifice. But some will simply charge whatever the market will bear. Here in on the prairies in a medium sized city the rental demand is high and rental costs are not so high. So if you rent a 3 bedroom apartment (about $1200) and the living room can be rented as a room, you can easily get 3 renters in there paying $400-$500 each and you're living free. But the difference in the layout and you being able to rent out the living room (and partition it without damaging the unit). If the landlord likes you they may not mind. Obviously some would resist this. So you don't move in to those places. There are always other choices. 

But you want more space and you're tired of having a landlord always around. So you want a house. You look for a 4+ bedroom house, hopefully with 2 other rooms that can be partitioned (houses do tend to have living and dining rooms after all) with a cooperating layout where you don't have to traverse these rooms to get somewhere else. So now you have 5 "bedrooms" because you need one to live in. Remember that any room not rented (because of a lack of windows usually) can be used for yourself for storage or anything else. In my city there are many houses like this for about $1400 and up in lower to middle class areas. 5 x $500-$550 (or more) = $2500-$2750. You take care of the utilities but you're still way ahead every month AND you're living free AND you have control of the house AND you have control over the outdoor space. Making a small profit is important because there will be times when you don't have full occupancy obviously. And that small profit would no doubt be taxable as rental income. 

But you want more control and as you're renting your options are limited for changing stuff in the home to either make it more livable or more profitable. So you opt to buy. But you've learned so much from re-renting these past years (not to mention all the savings from living rent free all the time) and choose to put this knowledge to work with your own home.


----------



## I am the Walrus (Jul 9, 2018)

In Ontario there are people that rent out nice houses and sublet to many people 


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tenant-luxury-homes-contempt-court-1.5825918


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Recently, finally, a lady in a North Van strata was forced to sell her TH condo for violating condo rules and renting many beds. A revolving door of shared housing. It was a very protracted matter and she was very defiant. The sale was ordered by the BC Supreme court and the strata recovered about 60k from the sale which was handled by a trustee. She also suffered contempt fines when earlier court orders were not complied with. The other strata owners were totally abused by her. I understand that price point dictates that many people have to live in strata's but I will avoid them because of issues like this, maintenance fees and sudden large assessments. 

.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Apart from having to comply with zoning by-laws (which is most unlikely), I hope the "house-owner/landlord" has insurance on his/her place with that many tenants (subletting et al) in there. For one, I (and I bet neither would the owner him/herself) wouldn't want to live next door to that fire-hazard.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

I am the Walrus said:


> In Ontario there are people that rent out nice houses and sublet to many people
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tenant-luxury-homes-contempt-court-1.5825918


Oh please. He lied to the landlords and didn't take care of the property. He's a fraud. Not applicable.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Apart from having to comply with zoning by-laws (which is most unlikely), I hope the "house-owner/landlord" has insurance on his/her place with that many tenants (subletting et al) in there. For one, I (and I bet neither would the owner him/herself) wouldn't want to live next door to that fire-hazard.


Why is it a fire hazard? Spontaneous combustion is a risk when multiple people share the same room? Of course they need to be quiet and respectful of the neighbors. That goes without saying. In any situation.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Retiredguy said:


> Recently, finally, a lady in a North Van strata was forced to sell her TH condo for violating condo rules and renting many beds. A revolving door of shared housing. It was a very protracted matter and she was very defiant. The sale was ordered by the BC Supreme court and the strata recovered about 60k from the sale which was handled by a trustee. She also suffered contempt fines when earlier court orders were not complied with. The other strata owners were totally abused by her. I understand that price point dictates that many people have to live in strata's but I will avoid them because of issues like this, maintenance fees and sudden large assessments.


I don't think any sane person would attempt this on property they don't totally control. A condo/townhouse is not that kind of property. A single family dwelling is the only type of property that this would work with. Thankfully there are quite a few of them out there.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Do they not cook? Hopefully they don't smoke. Being quiet would be challenging. 

Don't forget the pest-control cost too with that many tenants, illegally stuffed into a room.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cm2u said:


> Oh please. He lied to the landlords and didn't take care of the property. He's a fraud. Not applicable.


 .. and the tenant who sublets his room to 3 other people didn't lie? I guess not unless the landlord is doing it illegally him/herself. There're plenty of these slumlords around town.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> Do they not cook? Hopefully they don't smoke.


Of course it would be for non-smokers. I should have mentioned that. 2nd hand smoke would be intolerable in close quarters. 



> Being quiet would be challenging.


True. 



> Don't forget the pest-control cost too with that many tenants, illegally stuffed into a room.


There are numerous natural pest control solutions I would use. But its a good point. I wouldn't want to do anything illegal, hence my post here. People coming and going is noticed easily by the neighbors if its obviously flouting zoning laws. It just wouldn't work long term.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cm2u said:


> Of course it would be for non-smokers. I should have mentioned that. 2nd hand smoke would be intolerable in close quarters.


 ... you still haven't addressed the cooking issue. Will the tenants not cook?



> There are numerous natural pest control solutions I would use. But its a good point. I wouldn't want to do anything illegal, hence my post here. * People coming and going is noticed easily by the neighbors if its obviously flouting zoning laws*. It just wouldn't work long term.


 ... just how many people do you think a "single" family dwelling (as per your other post above) are allowed as a "legal" rooming house?


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Beaver101 said:


> .. and the tenant who sublets his room to 3 other people didn't lie? I guess not unless the landlord is doing it illegally him/herself. There're plenty of these slumlords around town.


I wouldn't call someone that's doing it without damaging property and is not disturbing the neighbors a slumlord. They are saving their tenants heaps of money. If someone is going to school and working (i.e. barely sleeping) they won't be there much. A surprising number of immigrants do this. Summer rolls around and do they enjoy their break from university? No! They get another job. Or two. Its a grueling regime we can't envision. But when someone is this determined to get ahead in the world they will live in surprisingly spartan conditions and sacrifice far more in comfort and space than almost any Canadian would. If you see where they come from you begin to understand their drive. There poverty really does kill from malnutrition. Or disease and lack of health care. For them its fear that motivates them. Fear of poverty and being destitute. Our background really does shape our perspectives even if it makes little sense in our country where welfare is available.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> ... you still haven't addressed the cooking issue. Will the tenants not cook?


Of course they could cook. But these are people where time is short. They're not going to spend an hour on meal prep. The microwave is their best friend. Or they could discover raw foods and how much time it saves.  A hot plate bolted to a metal bracket that is bolted to the wall satisfies many fire standards. I bet what is most restrictive is the insurance parameters though. You'd have to abide by those. I wonder if insurance companies can stipulate the number of people living under one roof? You'd think they could but can they?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cm2u said:


> I wouldn't call someone that's doing it without damaging property and is not disturbing the neighbors a slumlord. *They are saving their tenants heaps of money*. If someone is going to school and working (i.e. barely sleeping) they won't be there much. A surprising number of immigrants do this. Summer rolls around and do they enjoy their break from university? No! They get another job. Or two. Its a grueling regime we can't envision. But when someone is this determined to get ahead in the world they will live in surprisingly spartan conditions and sacrifice far more in comfort and space than almost any Canadian would. If you see where they come from you begin to understand their drive. There poverty really does kill from malnutrition. Or disease and lack of health care. For them its fear that motivates them. Fear of poverty and being destitute. Our background really does shape our perspectives even if it makes little sense in our country where welfare is available.


 ... BS. The landlord is out there to make a buck for him/herself. By allowing tenants to sublet his place already (which is illegal for rooming house) indicates he/she is a slumlord who can barely support his/her mortgage payments.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cm2u said:


> Of course they could cook. But these are people where time is short. They're not going to spend an hour on meal prep. The microwave is their best friend. Or they could discover raw foods and how much time it saves.  A hot plate bolted to a metal bracket that is bolted to the wall satisfies many fire standards. I bet what is most restrictive is the insurance parameters though. You'd have to abide by those. I wonder if insurance companies can stipulate the number of people living under one roof? You'd think they could but can they?


 .. the insurance company doesn't have to stipulate anything as the slumlord ain't gonna to get any. Un-insurable. And it'll be a matter of time before the city and fire inspectors will be knocking on doors.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> ... just how many people do you think a "single" family dwelling (as per your other post above) are allowed as a "legal" rooming house?


That's what I'm curious about, hence my post. The zoning laws will vary hugely area to area. Remember that this would never be done in upscale areas of cities. The land cost is just too high. More like average or a little lower than average. That's what I see over and over again in Vancouver. You don't see any on the west side, in Point Grey, UBC, the North Shore, etc, where shacks are sold for 2 mil and promptly torn down. We're talking about an older home in a slightly run down area with a superficial, cheap reno that looks neat and clean. Something no intelligent person would do for themselves.....LOL. But it works for tenants. Every single house that I saw people doing dorm style rentals was like this. They all looked very prim and proper in the photos.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ I think your last sentence sums up the "concept" .. "looks good on photos" ... I digress.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Beaver101 said:


> ... BS. The landlord is out there to make a buck for him/herself. By allowing tenants to sublet his place already (which is illegal for rooming house) indicates he/she is a slumlord who can barely support his/her mortgage payments.


Some people get into bad situations and are feeling very stressed and don't want to deal with tenants. So they often will rent a house at a little lower rate to only deal with one person, a calm, pragmatic problem solver who has ample financial assets and never is late with a rent payment no matter the situation. Landlords just love the idea of a place "running itself" and not bothering them with the little things. If someone is making payments and can demonstrate the condition of the place is being kept up do you really think they would want to stop that scenario if they don't really like real estate investment in the first place? Let's face it, most people get into real estate just for the perceived financial benefits. This is a terrible reason. You have to be a people person if you want to manage tenants well. A calm problem solver. And a good and resourceful negotiator when things fall apart. And firm when you need to be when people fail to abide by the rules clearly laid out from the start. You all know the "honeymoon period" where people are on their best behavior for the 1st 2 weeks then their real self emerges.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Beaver101 said:


> .. the insurance company doesn't have to stipulate anything as the slumlord ain't gonna to get any. Un-insurable. And it'll be a matter of time before the city and fire inspectors will be knocking on doors.


Well I would want to do it legally so they could knock and inspect all they want. I've lived in shared accommodation that was run well. It was very smooth and you'd hardly hear anyone raise their voice in weeks. The key is to get rid of problem tenants fast. One way is to have a truck available to move them for free. Many people will move far more amiably if you move them for free. Its a cheap problem solver. Also if you know the local market you may be able to show them places that are better deals than your place to entice them to move. 

Also share accommodation that caters to seniors is also very quiet. You can also target certain groups of people to cater to their needs like disabled. That's later of course. But it can be very lucrative when you specialize. I would think one of the best, especially if you were a little out of town, would be reasonably priced rehab. But that's WAY later when you're comfortable with the basics.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ I think your last sentence sums up the "concept" .. "looks good on photos" ... I digress.


When you are selling anything and take photos of it do you not make it look as possible observing lighting and perspective? I think we all do.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cm2u said:


> Well I would want to do it legally so they could knock and inspect all they want.


You're the same guy who's also posting in the Taxation section about avoiding Canadian taxes by claiming to be a non-resident









Residency and tax on capital gains


I'm a Canadian citizen with all my money in the US stock market and was wondering if I would be taxed if I was out of the country traveling around for over a year. Or do I absolutely need to get residency in another country before I don't have to file a tax return in Canada? No income would be...




www.canadianmoneyforum.com





And now you're talking about buying a property in a poor area of town and loading it up with immigrants. I'm just confused by all of this.

Maybe your plan is to set up the rooming house, hire a guy to manage it for you, then retire to Latin America? That might work out OK, but you might end up with tenants (and neighbours) cursing you for being an absentee landlord / slumlord ... and then one day, a fire destroys your property, and the insurer finds out what you've been doing and denies the claim.

You should also be concerned about your personal liability. If someone gets injured or dies at the property, or there is illegal activity (perhaps drug-related crime) you could be on the hook. Your insurance won't cover you if you use your property inappropriately.

"Hi, is that TD Home Insurance? Yes I would like a quote on a property in Surrey. I'm going to load it up with 10 immigrants in cots or bunk beds. No, the immigrants won't have any renter's insurance of their own, and I can't even say whether they are legal residents of Canada. Can you please tell me how much this insurance would cost, for $5 million liability? Oh and by the way, I live in Costa Rica".

Would love to hear what @Mukhang pera thinks about this!


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> You're the same guy who's also posting in the Taxation section about avoiding Canadian taxes by claiming to be a non-resident


Wow...that's a lot of assumptions. I'm actually posting for others that are starting their financial journey. Is that OK oh hallowed one? 



> And now you're talking about buying a property in a poor area of town and loading it up with immigrants. I'm just confused by all of this.


Actually if you had read my other post a little better you'd notice I said that the people doing it are almost all East Indian immigrants. And I admire them for doing that, for being resourceful in a very difficult real estate market where so many crash and burn. THEY specify they want renters of the same culture. These are my observations. My post was asking if others were considering this to raise revenue. We sure get off track easily, don't we?



> You should also be concerned about your personal liability. If someone gets injured or dies at the property, or there is illegal activity (perhaps drug-related crime) you could be on the hook. Your insurance won't cover you if you use your property inappropriately.


Personal liability is always a concern, absolutely. But the closer you are to everything (living there) the better. Of course most people would also be working, at least part time, and be away for part of the day. What I found useful in the past is gradually "deputizing" others to fill in for me when I'm away. Eyes on the ground as they say. You pay them with favors depending on what they want. Good communication is key. Just having someone trustworthy that will notify you if something goes array is key. One could run it as a LLC as well. But most owners may not go for that. Fire is definitely the biggest concern. I'd buy a lot of fire extinguishers and goggles because you can hold your breath for quite a long period of time but smoke makes it impossible to do anything even for a second if you can't see. A half face respirator alongside the extinguisher/goggles would help them deal with smoke a lot longer as well. Most of us cannot hold our breath for longer than about 30-45 seconds when stressed. If people can use the extinguisher fast it can make a world of difference. The fire truck can take forever to get there and if they do they'll soak the place with water making living impossible for a while.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

I'll comment here, considering j4b suggested I might.

cm2u, I am not sure why you started this thread. You seem to have your mind made up about the idea of operating illegal rooming houses. In fact, it would appear that the type of property use to which you refer is not what is generally thought of as a "rooming house". Rooming houses generally accommodate one person to a room, but usually have shared washroom and kitchen facilities. Here, you refer to multiple people to a room.

I think you said most of what needs to be said in the last line of your first post:

"And all this has to conform to zoning laws!"

True. So, if indeed you find a house in the Vancouver area that is zoned for such use, then no reason not to go ahead (not that it's a style of housing I would care to invest in). But I very much doubt that you will find anywhere in the Lower Mainland zoned for the use you describe. The areas to which you refer, such as East Vancouver, will be zoned mostly for single family and some multiple family, but I would doubt any such zoning would embrace the packed house concept you describe. But, give a call to City Hall and see where (if anyplace) you can operate as you suggest. 

As others have said, there are many issues to be faced apart from compliance with zoning (and all the fire, safety and health regulations that will apply). You will have to obtain insurance based on full disclosure to the insurer of the nature of the risk. I suspect most insurers won't be interested in underwriting a flophouse. The potential occupiers' liability issues seem a bit daunting.

You mention East Indians renting to East Indians. A plan such as that raises issues of prohibited grounds of discrimination in accommodation, or a service or facility, and might just run counter to the BC Human Rights Act.

You mention the intended occupants of these places being "tenants". Under the BC Residential Tenancy Act (and, indeed, at common law), the renters will not be "tenants". In brief compass, the hallmark of a tenancy is the right to "exclusive occupation". No one living there will have exclusive occupation of anything apart from a small sleeping space. They will be licensees, not tenants. Different rules apply and the Residential Tenancy Branch will have no jurisdiction. If you enter some kind of lease arrangement under which one person rents your whole house and that person brings in a small army of persons who will pay to stay there, then that one person will probably be a tenant, but not the rest of the mob.

In sum, I do not see your idea as being able to operate legally anywhere. But, if it can, and you can bring yourself within zoning laws and obtain necessary permits and licenses, then have at it! I would not care to get involved with such a thing myself. Too many pitfalls. Just one (of many I can think of) example:

Let's suppose you rent your house to "Joe" under lease for one year. Under the head lease, Joe agrees to pay rent of $5,000 per month. He brings in 16 people to pay $450 a month each. After awhile, some are behind in payment to Joe, they are partying too much and becoming unmanageable. Joe decides to walk. You are left with a houseful of people of whom you know little or nothing. They become squatters. You try to get help from the Residential Tenancy Branch. They wash their hands of the whole mess on jurisdictional grounds. Now what do you do?

Is it any better if we leave Joe out of it, and you contract directly with the sweet 16? Not much better.

Have fun.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> But I very much doubt that you will find anywhere in the Lower Mainland zoned for the use you describe.


Look at the title of this post. Once again you are not reading what I'm writing. Did I not state "expensive areas"? I'm simply asking if people have noticed this. Here's the title again for those suffering with memory loss: 
"Are people in expensive areas considering renting to multiple people per room?"
THEN I mentioned what I'd seen many people do in Vancouver. Undoubtedly this is done all over the world. I'm ASKING. 



> You will have to obtain insurance based on full disclosure to the insurer of the nature of the risk.


Ah, because the mortgage holder would insist on it to protect their investment. I wonder if large families occupying a house cost more to insure? Or if you opt for shared accommodation does your insurance cost go up? And what is the number that triggers a higher insurance cost? Others experienced in this area could answer. 



> but I would doubt any such zoning would embrace the packed house concept you describe. But, give a call to City Hall and see where (if anyplace) you can operate as you suggest.


Yes, as I keep on repeating it would need to legal. So it may be necessary to go elsewhere with more relaxed zoning. That means every ad I saw was illegal. That's surprising but then again I did mention they were not very obvious. Just after seeing multiple ads you notice a pattern so its easy to spot after a while. I found it rare to see more than 2 people to a room in Vancouver. So its not as if a lot of people are packing 20 people into a house in Vancouver! I think this concept is just catching on. And immigrants busy at school are not the type that would complain to city hall and then lose their accommodation because of it. Seems a little self defeating. But they sure might after they leave, especially if they're pissed at their landlord. But most are just too busy to bother. Canadians on the other hand have a lot more time! 



> You mention East Indians renting to East Indians. A plan such as that raises issues of prohibited grounds of discrimination in accommodation, or a service or facility, and might just run counter to the BC Human Rights Act.


Well a LOT of people are specifying who they want as renters. To be fair a large part of that could be linguistic. You can't really manage people you can't communicate with. Its certainly understandable on those merits alone but I can see how it could be abused to a huge extent. 



> You mention the intended occupants of these places being "tenants". Under the BC Residential Tenancy Act (and, indeed, at common law), the renters will not be "tenants".


That's my mistake. I should have been more careful in my terminology. I'll correct that. Thank you for pointing that out. Its vitally important and actually gives the landlord much more leverage when they want someone evicted. The last thing any landlord wants is a tenant with full legal rights. It can take weeks or months to get someone to leave, meanwhile they can make it miserable for all the rest there. 



> If you enter some kind of lease arrangement under which one person rents your whole house and that person brings in a small army of persons who will pay to stay there, then that one person will probably be a tenant, but not the rest of the mob.


Well I wouldn't go so far as deem them a mob! But absolutely, only one person can be in control. And only one person would be responsible for paying the owner the rent, irregardless of the vacancy situation. Sometimes utilities are shared but often it can be more of a headache than its worth. Sure it encourages conservation but the more people there the less effect that has as its split up so much. And not worrying about utility cost is nicer for the people there. 



> Let's suppose you rent your house to "Joe" under lease for one year.


I would never do that. Only careless owner wanting to be more detached from their property would do that. I am not that kind of owner/investor. I'm very hands on. Probably too hands on for my own sanity. This whole discussion is not about being a lousy property owner mismanaging their investment by doing the easiest possible thing. Its the opposite: How to cope when mortgage costs are stratospheric. How to keep increasing your revenue by increasing the number of people there. (And do it legally.)


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

One problem with multiple people per room or even 2 people per room is security of their valuables. A small steel security cage would probably be the answer. Sort of like a metal locker except beefier. That way the common areas are shared but real valuables like laptops are stored away when not in use. Of course this is only for smaller items. Then again its rare for people in this situation to have a lot of large items. If you are the owner one could always opt for a shipping container (painted unobtrusively to blend in with the surroundings or simply obscured by foliage) outside for storage (if its OK with zoning laws) or any room in the house without a window you're not already renting. Every house usually as at least one of those. And they'd be paying for that of course. Coin laundry can also bring in some money and it can be significant once you have quite a few people there. Another revenue stream is simply being a sort of pawnbroker. If people get low on money they give you their camera say, you give them cash and they retrieve it a little later. If not you sell the camera for a profit. Basically a free loan to keep them afloat with security for the lender. I wouldn't seek to profit on the loan unless its a regular occurrence which means that person has money management problems which means they probably need to go. Cheque cashing used to be good revenue too but so few people get paid by cheque it seems that's probably long gone. If you have a vehicle you can offer excursions to nice places as well. Just being around people presents opportunities if you're resourceful.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Maybe you can just establish a relationship with a local pawnbroker? Just send them to a specific pawn shop.

Yes you are onto something here by taking their possessions away. If they are low on money, you could for example take their shoes away.

Taking a man's shoes could be a good way to encourage rent payments. You should learn the language these immigrants speak, so that you can more effectively terrorize them.

The steel cages are a good idea but if people get unruly, you might need some security as well. Southeast Asian gangs are prevalent in the areas you are discussing so I think you could easily hire gangsters for security. I'm not sure if that's legal though.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

cm2u said:


> Look at the title of this post. Once again you are not reading what I'm writing. Did I not state "expensive areas"? I'm simply asking if people have noticed this. Here's the title again for those suffering with memory loss:
> "Are people in expensive areas considering renting to multiple people per room?"
> THEN I mentioned what I'd seen many people do in Vancouver. Undoubtedly this is done all over the world. I'm ASKING.


Actually, I think it is you who is not reading what you are writing.

In your initial post you said, in part:



cm2u said:


> That's what I'm curious about, hence my post. The zoning laws will vary hugely area to area. Remember that this would never be done in upscale areas of cities.


So you already answered for yourself the question of whether those in expensive areas are considering your (what would be for them) lunatic idea. You have already said that such would "never be done in upscale areas of cities." So, did you expect some on CMF to come forward and say they disagree, and they would most definitely try it in an upscale area? It's not at all clear why you would even pose such a daft question.



cm2u said:


> The point is as land prices escalate into the stratosphere in very high demand places like Vancouver and Toronto, people are finding it impossible to meet their mortgage payments without being more innovative and squeezing more people into their space.


This might come as a shock to you, but there are many who can afford those "stratospheric" prices without resorting to turning their homes and neighbourhoods into slums, in violation of the law.



cm2u said:


> Yes, as I keep on repeating it would need to legal. So it may be necessary to go elsewhere with more relaxed zoning. That means every ad I saw was illegal. That's surprising but then again I did mention they were not very obvious.


And, for me, at the risk of tiresome repetition, I am saying that nowhere in or around places like Vancouver will it ever be legal to put single family houses to such a use. As for places with "more relaxed zoning", I'll wager that just about any incorporated municipality will have zoning bylaws that won't allow what you propose. But I do know places where you can pull it off. Where I live I think it can be done. Remote, off-grid. Not much zoning law here and even less enforcement. No one gets in a boat and travels miles to see what we are doing. But, if I now advertise my large home here as available for people to share rooms, I somehow doubt I'll get many takers.

You note the advertisers you saw being coy about what they were up to and you seem to acknowledge that they were doing so in order to cloak the illegal nature of the enterprise. Did you find any ads for apparently lawful operations of the type in question?

In relation to whether the renters will be tenants, you replied to me thus:


cm2u said:


> That's my mistake. I should have been more careful in my terminology. I'll correct that. Thank you for pointing that out. Its vitally important and actually gives the landlord much more leverage when they want someone evicted. The last thing any landlord wants is a tenant with full legal rights. It can take weeks or months to get someone to leave, meanwhile they can make it miserable for all the rest there.


Whence does this added landlord's "leverage" flow? I probably have a lot more experience than most here when it comes to enforcing the rights of landlords against both "tenants" and "licensees". In the former case, if there's a problem and the tenant must go, if you show cause, the RTB will grant an order for possession, enforceable through the courts. Court enforcement can get expensive, but usually not necessary. As to the latter, the RTB will tell you are on your own. Do you think that gives you liberty to go to the premises by night, with the boys and the rubber hoses and effect a self-help eviction? To do it legally, and sans violence, you must commence a superior court proceeding. Do you think that's quick and cheap?



cm2u said:


> Well I wouldn't go so far as deem them a mob! But absolutely, only one person can be in control. And only one person would be responsible for paying the owner the rent, irregardless of the vacancy situation.


In the next breath you said:


cm2u said:


> I would never do that. Only careless owner wanting to be more detached from their property would do that. I am not that kind of owner/investor. I'm very hands on.


Is there not a contradiction there? On one hand you say only one person in control and responsible for the rent. But then you turn around and say you would never do that, i.e., rent to someone under lease for one year, leaving them to bring in others from whom they would collect rent.

Let me also address this item:


cm2u said:


> Ah, because the mortgage holder would insist on it to protect their investment. I wonder if large families occupying a house cost more to insure? Or if you opt for shared accommodation does your insurance cost go up? And what is the number that triggers a higher insurance cost? Others experienced in this area could answer.


It does not take anyone with a lot of "experience" to address this. If the property is mortgaged, yes the mortgagee will require being first loss payee under a suitable policy of insurance. Even if there is no mortgage, few homeowners choose to self-insure. They want coverage.

I see no point to comparing the situation of a large family occupying a single-family dwelling to a situation where a bevy of unrelated individuals are paying rent and where the use of the property is in violation of local law. Just think of it like this: You are sitting in your insurance broker's office to arrange coverage. You will almost certainly asked something about the property and its use. Do you really think you will be told it will make no difference to the insurer, or to the policy premium payable, whether the property is occupied by you and your family, or by a bunch of strangers, who pay rent, with more than 2 to a room, with hotplates bolted to the wall of every room (your brilliant suggestion)?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I suspect he's trolling, @Mukhang pera ... you already told him clearly that there is no where in Greater Vancouver that he can legally do this.

He's probably just having some fun during his holiday break.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Maybe you can just establish a relationship with a local pawnbroker? Just send them to a specific pawn shop.
> 
> Yes you are onto something here by taking their possessions away. If they are low on money, you could for example take their shoes away.
> 
> ...


Some capital suggestions there j4b!

The steel cages should be large enough to contain a person, so they can be relegated to solitary for violation of house rules.

Putting gangsters on payroll might almost become a must at some point.

Another moneymaker I have seen everywhere in the Philippines, and which might work well here, is helping out your renters with small loans. The gangsters are required to act as enforcers. The lending in question in the Phils is well known as "five six". If I lend you 5 dollars today, you owe me 6 dollars one month later. None of those paltry single-digit annual returns!

And how about turning the whole place into a house of ill-repute? Those are said to be profitable.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

james4beach said:


> I suspect he's trolling, @Mukhang pera ... you already told him clearly that there is no where in Greater Vancouver that he can legally do this.
> 
> He's probably just having some fun during his holiday break.


I kinda' hope just trolling and not expecting to be taken seriously.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

cm2u said:


> Ah, because the mortgage holder would insist on it to protect their investment. I wonder if large families occupying a house cost more to insure? Or if you opt for shared accommodation does your insurance cost go up? And what is the number that triggers a higher insurance cost? Others experienced in this area could answer.


I choose to no longer rent out my bsmt suite but when I did I had to have my house insured as a 2 family dwelling. Later one of my kids and his common law girl friend lived in the suite. I specifically question my agent/insurer on that and because it was family it did not required 2 family coverage.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Mukhang pera said:


> The steel cages should be large enough to contain a person, who they can be relegated to solitary for violation of house rules.
> 
> Putting gangsters on payroll might almost become a must at some point.


lol!


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> Maybe you can just establish a relationship with a local pawnbroker? Just send them to a specific pawn shop.


What? They would get charged a fortune. I wouldn't charge a penny. I would only profit if they didn't pay me back. 



> Yes you are onto something here by taking their possessions away. If they are low on money, you could for example take their shoes away.


Oh please....you can't sell shoes. Most of us have a few things we could dispose of. And its just an offer to help them out. We all have emergencies at times. Its hardly greedy if I don't charge any interest, is it?


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> So you already answered for yourself the question of whether those in expensive areas are considering your (what would be for them) lunatic idea.


The title using the words "expensive areas" denotes cities, not areas of cities. Like Vancouver is an expensive area. Like Toronto is. That's where this might occur, where people would have the motivation to do something extreme like this. Now within those cities we have richer and poorer areas. This would be done in the poorer areas. But I thought that was obvious. I guess it wasn't so obvious. Maybe I should have specified that with more clarity. Now you know. But economically we all know it wouldn't work in an expensive area because zoning laws would be more strict. That's the obvious part that most of you seem to miss. Even if they didn't care you'd have to have about 40 people living in the house! Even I couldn't stand that! 

As for a lunatic idea, people are ALREADY DOING IT. Unless you didn't realize it. Which I suppose you don't. As I said they're doing it in the less expensive areas of the city. But in those areas its still expensive. A million for a tear down is expensive, isn't it? Its mighty hard to pay the mortgage with a typical house rental, isn't it, with land costs so high? I just don't see any way to do it other than packing people into rooms. 



> This might come as a shock to you, but there are many who can afford those "stratospheric" prices without resorting to turning their homes and neighborhoods into slums, in violation of the law.


Once again you're off track. This discussion is about renting your investment and paying the mortgage with the rental income. Like any sane real estate investment. Or have you bought into the mindset that its just fine to drain your savings and your income with your latest real estate purchase? To me that's just a bad investment. Or very poorly managed. If the rent doesn't pay for the mortgage its a bad investment! It just isn't good enough. 

Please tell me how you pay a mortgage of 1-1.5 mil renting out a 3-4 bedroom house. I'm all ears. How much could you charge in a lousier area of Vancouver for an average house? Because when I look at Vancouver house rentals I see no 3 bedroom houses renting out at anywhere near what a 20-30 year mortgage at a low rate would cost. If you know of something let me know. After all, nobody wants to live with a lot of people. I know I wouldn't, given a choice. Oh, then there's the city taxes that have risen a lot as well. Most people invest to come out ahead. Not to drain their account monthly in the hopes of a capital gain several years down the road. That may come but you simply can't count on a massive appreciation. 



> This might come as a shock to you, but there are many who can afford those "stratospheric" prices without resorting to turning their homes and neighborhoods into slums, in violation of the law.


Look, its clear you have zero experience managing people well. Calling a shared accommodation situation a slum is just rude. And wrong. Are all students living in slums? Are they slum dwellers? Is that a fair term to use? No - it isn't. A home with no alcohol, no smoking, no drugs....is hardly a slum. Its a cleaner place than most of you occupy I would venture. Yet you name call like a child. It seems that most of you try to put down new ideas because you either don't have the management skill and patience to make it work or are afraid to try. I'm betting its both. 




> > cm2u said: Yes, as I keep on repeating it would need to legal. So it may be necessary to go elsewhere with more relaxed zoning. That means every ad I saw was illegal. That's surprising but then again I did mention they were not very obvious.





> And, for me, at the risk of tiresome repetition, I am saying that nowhere in or around places like Vancouver will it ever be legal to put single family houses to such a use.


Well my dear fellow, many are doing it as we speak. In Vancouver. And in Toronto no doubt. So what do you say to that?



> You note the advertisers you saw being coy about what they were up to and you seem to acknowledge that they were doing so in order to cloak the illegal nature of the enterprise. Did you find any ads for apparently lawful operations of the type in question?


I keep on telling you I've seen several people doing it. I don't know if its lawful. Judging from what you all are saying it sounds like it isn't in Vancouver. And no doubt wouldn't be in most if not all areas of Toronto. All I saw were Indian or Pakistani. Almost all were students looking to rent to others from the same cultural background. Look on Craigslist and FB Marketplace and you'll see them. Just look for the lowest priced rooms for rent. Some you have to ask if they are for a single person or not. Others simply state they aren't. 

In relation to whether the renters will be tenants, you replied to me thus:

cm2u said:
That's my mistake. I should have been more careful in my terminology. I'll correct that. Thank you for pointing that out. Its vitally important and actually gives the landlord much more leverage when they want someone evicted. The last thing any landlord wants is a tenant with full legal rights. It can take weeks or months to get someone to leave, meanwhile they can make it miserable for all the rest there.

Whence does this added landlord's "leverage" flow? 

Well where I am (not in Vancouver or Toronto) if its shared accommodation the person in charge can tell someone to leave and they have to walk out the door. If they don't the police can remove them. It really is that simple when its not a tenancy situation. They are there by permission which is rescinded at the whim of the person in charge. This helps people abide by the rules that were carefully explained to them before they moved in, that they themselves agreed to. When I was running a place a while back I got to the point of requiring them to sign each and every rule showing they read and agreed to it. It was pages long. But it helped keep order. If they don't agree they don't move in. Its very fair. When I did that the quality of renter escalated dramatically! One trick I discovered to discern if someone was a smoker: Ask them if they mind smoking outside. If they say they don't smoke you probably are getting a non-smoker. If they say they agree to it you have a smoker and their application can be filed in the round filing cabinet sitting beside your desk on the floor. 



> I probably have a lot more experience than most here when it comes to enforcing the rights of landlords against both "tenants" and "licensees".


I've never heard of the term "licensee". Interesting.



> In the former case, if there's a problem and the tenant must go, if you show cause, the RTB will grant an order for possession, enforceable through the courts.


Here that takes about 3 weeks at least and can drag out for several weeks after that as getting an office to throw them out has long delays. People know this and use it to get free rent which is hugely unfair to the owner. 



> Court enforcement can get expensive, but usually not necessary. As to the latter, the RTB will tell you are on your own. Do you think that gives you liberty to go to the premises by night, with the boys and the rubber hoses and effect a self-help eviction? To do it legally, and sans violence, you must commence a superior court proceeding. Do you think that's quick and cheap?


Here they live by your permission. If you say they have to go they have to go. But look....I'm a reasonable person. I'm not going to toss someone out on a winter's night with no place to go. What I'm saying is it gives the person in charge leverage that is handy and garnishes respect. Something many tenants have discarded long ago. 
I've rarely evicted anyone on bad terms. Uncomfortable maybe but not bad. Its just how you do it and your attitude and showing respect and empathy for their situation. 



> > cm2u said: Well I wouldn't go so far as deem them a mob! But absolutely, only one person can be in control. And only one person would be responsible for paying the owner the rent, irregardless of the vacancy situation.





> In the next breath you said:





> > cm2u said: I would never do that. Only a careless owner wanting to be more detached from their property would do that. I am not that kind of owner/investor. I'm very hands on.





> Is there not a contradiction there? On one hand you say only one person in control and responsible for the rent. But then you turn around and say you would never do that, i.e., rent to someone under lease for one year, leaving them to bring in others from whom they would collect rent.


I'm not getting your question at all. I never hinted at me renting a house to one person and having them rerent it to others. I don't know where that came from. This is about ME renting the house and rerenting the rooms to others. Or buying the house and packing as many people into the place as I legally can. In both situations I'm the one in charge. Of course the owner has precedence if I'm renting!



> Let me also address this item:





> > cm2u said: Ah, because the mortgage holder would insist on it to protect their investment. I wonder if large families occupying a house cost more to insure? Or if you opt for shared accommodation does your insurance cost go up? And what is the number that triggers a higher insurance cost? Others experienced in this area could answer.





> It does not take anyone with a lot of "experience" to address this. If the property is mortgaged, yes the mortgage will require being first loss payee under a suitable policy of insurance. Even if there is no mortgage, few homeowners choose to self-insure. They want coverage.


Understandable. Though I opted for no insurance on my small apartment building. It was risky but the insurance company demanded so many things they made it unworkable. I have to admit it did result in some stress I would never have had if I had been insured. Especially when we had a small fire. But even that only cost about $5000 to remedy and the place looked much better after the renovation/repair. 



> I see no point to comparing the situation of a large family occupying a single-family dwelling to a situation where a bevy of unrelated individuals are paying rent and where the use of the property is in violation of local law.


You keep on mentioning law and I keep on saying I would only do this if it was legal. 



> Just think of it like this: You are sitting in your insurance broker's office to arrange coverage. You will almost certainly be asked something about the property and its use. Do you really think you will be told it will make no difference to the insurer, or to the policy premium payable, whether the property is occupied by you and your family, or by a bunch of strangers, who pay rent, with more than 2 to a room, with hotplates bolted to the wall of every room (your brilliant suggestion)?


Well they insure apartment buildings, don't they? Filled with strangers with cooking facilities. And a hotplate bolted to a bracket bolted to the wall is very fire safe. Smokers are the big fire risk. Eliminate them and you drastically lower your odds of a combustible calamity. But you're right - it would be a headache I'd avoid completely if possible. Unfortunately if you have a mortgage you'd have to have insurance. I'll have to look into this aspect a lot more. Thank you for pointing this out.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

You mentioned renter's insurance. Can a landlord demand a renter get insurance to cover liability in case they cause a fire? And that would no doubt be great news for the insurer covering the entire property. But how could they ascertain who started the fire if there were several people there and no one admitted to? Seems like an untenable situation.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Mukhang pera said:


> The steel cages should be large enough to contain a person, so they can be relegated to solitary for violation of house rules.


Oh man...I knew that was coming....LOL> Good one. I did mention a cage


Mukhang pera said:


> Some capital suggestions there j4b!
> 
> The steel cages should be large enough to contain a person, so they can be relegated to solitary for violation of house rules.
> 
> ...


Yeah, yeah, very funny. When I passed through Puerto Galera many years ago it was teeming with prostitutes. It ruined it. I left the next morning. After being in Batangas (Anilao) without any of that it was a stark change. Heading south through the Visayas, through Boracay and ending up in Cebu I saw none. It was the real Philippines. Best underwater vistas I'd ever seen. Moalboal is just breathtaking. There was a spectacular island I got to on a bangka from Anilao but I can't find it on the map. It wasn't Marikaban...must be very small. Just unbelievable diving. So many people go to Thailand and so few to the Philippines. They miss so much. The beaches and diving in Thailand is nothing compared to the Philippines. Plus the English there makes things so much easier. One of the most underrated destinations on the planet. 
Remember I said that if I gave a loan I wouldn't bother with charging interest? And I've done it before. It garnished a lot of good will between myself and the people there. Its something done in emergencies, very occasionally. People really appreciate it when they pay their debt and get their stuff back. You were there for them when no one else was. They remember that.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Retiredguy said:


> I choose to no longer rent out my bsmt suite but when I did I had to have my house insured as a 2 family dwelling. Later one of my kids and his common law girl friend lived in the suite. I specifically question my agent/insurer on that and because it was family it did not required 2 family coverage.


Can you share about how much it cost when it was rented to 2 separate entities?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

I do not have the time or inclination to bandy words with you endlessly. You think you have a great idea here. Fine. Carry on with it. You have not evoked much response one way or another here on CMF. No one has come forward and congratulated you for propounding a great idea.

I will offer a retort to just a few points. My use of the word slum. I'll not resile from it, albeit I recognize it's not altogether apropos. But you are talking about creating a situation where strangers, apparently eager to find cheap accommodation, are willing to share even their sleeping space and to do it somehow under the radar of municipal authorities. I can imagine the quality of life offered in your place. 3 or 4 to a room (you mentioned you have an idea to avoid the use of conventional beds, all the better to pack in more renters). They'll be cooking on hotplates in their rooms. Lovely. Will there be hoods and extractor fans over each hotplate? Or will everyone and their belongings just eventually take on a nice patina of grease and the aroma of who-knows-what. And what if my roomie wants to be cooking up a nice mess of curry while I am trying to sleep? The environment you describe sounds to me oppressive, depressing and slum-like.

And why do you say that those who are not tenants with depart meekly when told, whereas a tenant will require the attendance of the sheriff? You plainly have no experience with a recalcitrant licensee. And I defy you to show me a case where police have effected an eviction. If the renter does not leave when told and you call the cops, they will tell you it's a civil matter and not their job to decide who is a tenant, who is not, and to provide a summary trial and summary justice. It does not happen.

And did you not say to me, _supra_, the following


cm2u said:


> I'm not getting your question at all. I never hinted at me renting a house to one person and having them rerent it to others. I don't know where that came from. This is about ME renting the house and rerenting the rooms to others. Or buying the house and packing as many people into the place as I legally can. In both situations I'm the one in charge. Of course the owner has precedence if I'm renting!


Don't tell us you never hinted at the idea of renting to a head tenant. Your words in the first paragraph below indicate that exact intention. What else can we draw from your idea that "only one person can be in control. And only one person would be responsible for paying the owner the rent, irregardless (sic) of the vacancy situation." Does that not reveal an intent to rent the whole to one person, who then must look to others to collect rent on a piecemeal basis, and who would still be on the hook for paying you the full rent for the premises, without regard to the number of occupants at any time? 

True, in the second paragraph below you express a different intent. That is why I called you on the glaring inconsistency.



cm2u said:


> ... But absolutely, only one person can be in control. And only one person would be responsible for paying the owner the rent, irregardless of the vacancy situation. ...
> 
> 
> I would never do that. Only careless owner wanting to be more detached from their property would do that. I am not that kind of owner/investor. I'm very hands on. Probably too hands on for my own sanity. This whole discussion is not about being a lousy property owner mismanaging their investment by doing the easiest possible thing. Its the opposite: How to cope when mortgage costs are stratospheric. How to keep increasing your revenue by increasing the number of people there. (And do it legally.)


And on the topic of insurance, I simply see it taking you nowhere to reply to my comments by saying that apartment buildings get insured. If you doubt my words, call any insurance broker and set it all out, what you are suggesting here, full and fair disclosure of the notion of filling up a single-family dwelling as something akin to a rooming house, only worse, since rooming houses usually have rooms occupied by an individual, not 2, or 3 or 4. Just ask if they can find an insurer for you.

So, back to where I started. You seem to have you mind made up. Not sure why you are here. You need the approval of no one here. I think the concept is wrong-headed. But you think I am a timid, shrinking violet, who does not know what it takes to be a successful investor in this world. I don't need your approval either. Carry on and enjoy.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

cm2u said:


> You mentioned renter's insurance. Can a landlord demand a renter get insurance to cover liability in case they cause a fire? And that would no doubt be great news for the insurer covering the entire property.


I thought you were a sophisticated, experienced, investor and landlord. You should know that you can require a tenant to maintain appropriate liability insurance. I have long included it as a covenant in my lease agreements.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> I do not have the time or inclination to bandy words with you endlessly.


You sure seem to!



> You think you have a great idea here.


Not sure why you say that. I asked a question. I'm waiting for responses from people with experience in this area. So far I haven't had any. I admit its an unusual situation I'm proposing. For someone that writes very well you aren't reading what I'm saying very well. Maybe I could write better. 



> You have not evoked much response one way or another here on CMF. No one has come forward and congratulated you for propounding a great idea.


Its not about it being a great idea. Its about if anyone was considering it. Very different!



> I will offer a retort to just a few points. My use of the word slum. I'll not resile from it, albeit I recognize it's not altogether apropos. But you are talking about creating a situation where strangers, apparently eager to find cheap accommodation, are willing to share even their sleeping space and to do it somehow under the radar of municipal authorities.


I never said that. I have been saying the exact opposite and keep repeating it over and over. I have no intention of flouting any law. Not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. Doing something illegal is never sustainable in the long term. Real estate is very much a long term commitment. 



> I can imagine the quality of life offered in your place.


Here comes the judging. 



> 3 or 4 to a room (you mentioned you have an idea to avoid the use of conventional beds, all the better to pack in more renters).


Are you really saying that you're not aware that over a billion people around the world live is far worse conditions than I'm proposing? That it would be a clean, non-smoking home?



> They'll be cooking on hotplates in their rooms.


I only mentioned that as a possibility. 



> Lovely. Will there be hoods and extractor fans over each hotplate?


There are things called windows. They open. Fresh air comes in. Air is replaced. I would do things gradually as things changed, as people increased. Some people do live just fine without cooking facilities. Its not unheard of. Unusual but possible. Imagine a renter works in a restaurant where they have free food. Cooking problem solved. There is something called raw food as well. Heard of it? Its where you eat things without cooking them. Its better than cooking. Cooking reduces vitamin content. Cooking changes fat and makes it much more dangerous for our arterial health. You can sprout almost any grain, pea, lentil or bean. Most ready to eat in just 12 to 24 hours. 



> Or will everyone and their belongings just eventually take on a nice patina of grease and the aroma of who-knows-what. And what if my roomie wants to be cooking up a nice mess of curry while I am trying to sleep? The environment you describe sounds to me oppressive, depressing and slum-like.


There you go again with your judgements. Maybe you have a thing against East Indians. Guess you've never enjoyed spices that go into curry like turmeric, coriander, cumin and many others. 



> And why do you say that those who are not tenants with depart meekly when told, whereas a tenant will require the attendance of the sheriff?


I never used the term meekly. You are again adding words. If a tenant refuses and ignores your order of possession a sheriff is the only option. I think you are aware of that. 



> You plainly have no experience with a recalcitrant licensee.


As I said we don't have such a thing in my area. Here we have shared accommodation. People live under the roof of someone and if they are told to leave they have to leave. Otherwise they are trespassing. And the police remove trespassers. But as I've said before a situation like that would be highly unusual in my case since I seek peace and an amiable departure. I mentioned finding accommodation for them at a lower price than mine and offering to move them for free. Things like this elicit cooperation, not confrontation. 



> And I defy you to show me a case where police have effected an eviction. If the renter does not leave when told and you call the cops, they will tell you it's a civil matter and not their job to decide who is a tenant, who is not, and to provide a summary trial and summary justice. It does not happen.


See above regarding trespassing. 



> And did you not say to me, supra, the following


 cm2u said:
I'm not getting your question at all. I never hinted at me renting a house to one person and having them rerent it to others. I don't know where that came from. This is about ME renting the house and rerenting the rooms to others. Or buying the house and packing as many people into the place as I legally can. In both situations I'm the one in charge. Of course the owner has precedence if I'm renting!



> Don't tell us you never hinted at the idea of renting to a head tenant.


I never did. I merely mentioned that having eyes on the place is very helpful. And it can be more than one set of eyes. All I would want is to be notified if there is a problem. Problems arise very rarely so it wouldn't be much to ask. Just a phone call. For that favor I would do them favors. 



> Your words in the first paragraph below indicate that exact intention.


Sorry if that was unclear to you. I mean....my entire premise for this discussion is about me doing the renting to many tenants. I never said I wanted to rent it to one person. Your reading comprehension is really wanting. At least you command an expansive vocabulary!



> What else can we draw from your idea that "only one person can be in control. And only one person would be responsible for paying the owner the rent, irregardless (sic) of the vacancy situation."





> Does that not reveal an intent to rent the whole to one person, who then must look to others to collect rent on a piecemeal basis, and who would still be on the hook for paying you the full rent for the premises, without regard to the number of occupants at any time?


Absolutely not! The one person is me! With me being such a control freak do you think for a millisecond I'd hand the reins off to someone else when its my investment and I have so much to lose? 



> True, in the second paragraph below you express a different intent. That is why I called you on the glaring inconsistency.


Ah....that's you finally understanding what I'm saying. 



> > cm2u said:.. But absolutely, only one person can be in control. And only one person would be responsible for paying the owner the rent, irregardless of the vacancy situation. ...


And of course that person is me. Maybe I should have clarified that. If so, I'm sorry. 



> And on the topic of insurance, I simply see it taking you nowhere to reply to my comments by saying that apartment buildings get insured. If you doubt my words, call any insurance broker and set it all out, what you are suggesting here, full and fair disclosure of the notion of filling up a single-family dwelling as something akin to a rooming house, only worse, since rooming houses usually have rooms occupied by an individual, not 2, or 3 or 4. Just ask if they can find an insurer for you.


As I said I do find this very worrying. This is my big lesson I've learned in this discussion. I had forgotten what a pain the insurance company was for my building and how demanding they were and why I opted to ignore their warnings. Turns out I was right but it did add stress to the time I was invested and for most people it wouldn't be worth it. But then again I was living in the apartment building so I felt more in touch. I would never in a million years consider it if I wasn't living there and there are few real estate investors that live in their investment/rental properties so insurance is a necessary evil. I'm curious if tenants carry renter's insurance how that would affect my application for insurance. 



> So, back to where I started. You seem to have you mind made up. Not sure why you are here.


Well I'll repeat myself....again. I asked a question regarding packing an unusual number of people into a home. Wondering if anyone was considered it. That's it. Relax. Its a simple question. So far no one has admitted to considering it. 



> You need the approval of no one here. I think the concept is wrong-headed. But you think I am a timid, shrinking violet, who does not know what it takes to be a successful investor in this world. I don't need your approval either. Carry on and enjoy.


Did I ask for approval? I asked a question and several of you are trying to prove the question bears no merit. Yet you have not offered a solution to buying in expensive cities and being able to pay your mortgage with your rental revenue. But maybe someone knows a way! We can all hope. If they do they probably won't share it! The obvious solution is to not buy in such an expensive market if you can't pay for it on your own. The vast majority are probably barely paying the mortgage by renting out part of the house conventionally (poorly and inefficiently) and most of it is coming from their paycheck. And hoping for a fat capital gain in a few years. It could happen after all. But what if they lose their renters for a while? Some could not make their mortgage payment. That is risky living. That is foolish living. The pandemic has shown us unforeseen things can happen and our only financial protection is ample savings.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Mukhang pera said:


> I thought you were a sophisticated, experienced, investor and landlord. You should know that you can require a tenant to maintain appropriate liability insurance. I have long included it as a covenant in my lease agreements.


That is good news but what percentage of tenants do you think would need to get insurance to get into your building? I'm just wondering how many you lose because of this stipulation. Or is it so common in your area that most have it already? And what does it cost for most people to get liability insurance and can they get it without coverage of their property for a reduced cost?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

cm2u said:


> That is good news but what percentage of tenants do you think would need to get insurance to get into your building? I'm just wondering how many you lose because of this stipulation. Or is it so common in your area that most have it already? And what does it cost for most people to get liability insurance and can they get it without coverage of their property for a reduced cost?


I really do not know how much they pay, but my guess is it's inexpensive. I have only one rental now, in SoCal. The building is insured with AllState. I pay about USD 2,400/mo. to insure the building for USD 900,000, plus liability insurance of $500,000 per occurrence, plus a number of other, lesser, coverages. There is some contents coverage, but limited, since it's now a rental, even though I used to live there. So about $200/mo. for all of that. The tenants would pay a lot less I dare say, for the insurance my leases require.

Maybe I lose some tenants, but the property is in a high demand area, so there's never a shortage of applicants and I have had very little turnover in the past 22 years. In that time, maybe I have had the equivalent of one unit vacant for a few months in total. Essentially a vacancy rate of nil.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cm2u said:


> Did I ask for approval?


I'm actually more disturbed now that it sounds like this isn't just a joke, and you might be serious.

I think what you're describing is immoral and illegal. You should not do this.

It doesn't matter if others are doing it and getting away with it. They won't get away with it forever, and if you have a neighbour like me, I would actively work on ruining your operation. If it was me ... I would tip off the city inspectors and police. I would find out who your bank and insurers are, and tip them off.

If a sense of morality isn't enough to prevent you from doing something this obscene, then maybe you should consider law enforcement and members of the public who will assist them, against you.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> I really do not know how much they pay, but my guess is it's inexpensive. I have only one rental now, in SoCal. The building is insured with AllState. I pay about USD 2,400/mo. to insure the building for USD 900,000,


You mean $2400/yr as you later say its $200/mo? It seems way too cheap for $900,000 coverage, doesn't it? But $2400/mo equals $28,800/yr and that seems too much. 



> plus liability insurance of $500,000 per occurrence, plus a number of other, lesser, coverages. There is some contents coverage, but limited, since it's now a rental, even though I used to live there. So about $200/mo. for all of that. The tenants would pay a lot less I dare say, for the insurance my leases require.


Maybe I lose some tenants, but the property is in a high demand area, so there's never a shortage of applicants and I have had very little turnover in the past 22 years. In that time, maybe I have had the equivalent of one unit vacant for a few months in total. Essentially a vacancy rate of nil.

That is an impressive demand. I would be aiming for lower income people that probably wouldn't have insurance as they would have few possessions. In your building it sounds middle class so probably a lot of people have insurance already for their numerous possessions so it may not affect you hardly at all. And if you've not heard negative feedback from the tenants it probably doesn't make a difference there. If you didn't insist on this insurance from your tenants how much more do you think it would cost to cover the building?


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> I'm actually more disturbed now that it sounds like this isn't just a joke, and you might be serious.


Of course I'm serious. Look at how much I'm typing. You think I do this for fun? I want to learn and forums are some of the best places to get unbiased information.



> I think what you're describing is immoral and illegal. You should not do this.


Remember how many times I've stated I would only do this if it was legal? Guess I'll have to repeat myself a few more times. 



> It doesn't matter if others are doing it and getting away with it. They won't get away with it forever, and if you have a neighbor like me, I would actively work on ruining your operation. If it was me ... I would tip off the city inspectors and police. I would find out who your bank and insurers are, and tip them off.


I would probably do the same. It would degrade the neighborhood if it contravened local laws. But I've said I would aim for quiet and clean people and if they didn't behave they would have to leave. By them not having tenancy protection I would have a lot more power so they are more likely to obey the very rules they said they would obey before signing the rental agreement by signing every single rule beforehand. Noise and cleanliness is basically it though. Just leaving a room the way you find it is crucial but that's just part of shared accommodation. No one can tolerate the mess of another. Those kind of people just have to live alone. I also learned that if you come and go from a rear door its far less intrusive to the neighborhood. Rear doors are often obscured by trees and foliage, not to mention backyard walls and fences. Those things also absorb/block noise. The front is usually open to the world. Noise is spread much more efficiently from the front of the house.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

cm2u said:


> Can you share about how much it cost when it was rented to 2 separate entities?


It was not a lot as I recall. Less than $50 .


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

cm2u said:


> You mean $2400/yr as you later say its $200/mo? It seems way too cheap for $900,000 coverage, doesn't it? But $2400/mo equals $28,800/yr and that seems too much.


Actually, I just went online and took a look at my current insurance policy and coverages. See screenshot. I was in error in saying the premium of $2,400 a year for coverage on the building of $900,000. In fact, the premium is $2,195 and the coverage is $1,038,320 on the main house and $103,832 on outbuildings. It gets adjusted (usually upwards) every year to reflect what the insurer sees as increased construction costs.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

cm2u said:


> When I was browsing rentals in Vancouver I noticed more and more people doing this. They often are rather coy in the ad, not directly stating what they're doing. The vast majority are young East Indians, often in school. Obviously the parents have bought the house and they may or may not be living in Canada with them. They typically have a renovated house that looks nicely up to date and in good condition, and usually in a lousier area like Surrey, New West, East Van, etc, where pricing is less ludicrous. They aim for their own culture for renters probably so communication is better. Understandable.
> 
> The point is as land prices escalate into the stratosphere in very high demand places like Vancouver and Toronto, people are finding it impossible to meet their mortgage payments without being more innovative and squeezing more people into their space. I noticed pricing to be generally about 60% more if the room was single than shared by another. Some are really pushing it and putting in 4 or more people in a room. That sure takes some major tolerance and cooperation! So if a bedroom for 1 person would be $800 it might be $500-600 each for 2 people or $300-400 each for 4.
> 
> ...


If you can't cover the mortgage at near 0% interest on the rent a property will bear in the market, perhaps that is an indication that the valuation is unwarranted and you should be investing your capital elsewhere. Having to stack tenants like cordwood in bedrooms (how do you get 4 adults in a typical bedroom--set it up like a military dorm)? What you're talking about is a flophouse and I would consider it a high maintenance, high risk business. The thing that is wrong with this picture is the housing valuation. Put your money elsewhere.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

cm2u said:


> That's what I'm curious about, hence my post. The zoning laws will vary hugely area to area. Remember that this would never be done in upscale areas of cities. The land cost is just too high. More like average or a little lower than average. That's what I see over and over again in Vancouver. You don't see any on the west side, in Point Grey, UBC, the North Shore, etc, where shacks are sold for 2 mil and promptly torn down. We're talking about an older home in a slightly run down area with a superficial, cheap reno that looks neat and clean. Something no intelligent person would do for themselves.....LOL. But it works for tenants. Every single house that I saw people doing dorm style rentals was like this. They all looked very prim and proper in the photos.


Honestly, if you are exploring a high touch rental business as this, I would rather look at buying real estate in markets with better rental yields and recently depressed prices. The place to buy real estate after 2008 crash was in places like Las Vegas.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Retiredguy said:


> It was not a lot as I recall. Less than $50 .


You mean it cost about $50 more a month when 2 different groups of people occupied the house?


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

andrewf said:


> Honestly, if you are exploring a high touch rental business as this, I would rather look at buying real estate in markets with better rental yields and recently depressed prices. The place to buy real estate after 2008 crash was in places like Las Vegas.


Agreed 100%. But first the people that are interested in doing this don't have the money to buy. And the experience they would get managing a house could very much help them later. I want them to try "re-renting" where you rent the house from the owner then get enough roommates to cover the cost of the entire rent so they live at no cost or perhaps make a small profit and have control of the space. Many people find it impossible to save because of their high accommodation costs. Of course others wouldn't find the hassle worth it but I think it is for almost everyone save very highly stressed, high income earners. Sure its a hassle in the beginning but things have a way of smoothing themselves out, also we get better at stuff we do over and over again. So the workload of management declines hugely over time as we manage more efficiently. 
Also they don't want to leave Vancouver......for now. Admittedly its a lot harder to do in a place like Vancouver and Toronto than most urban centers in Canada. The best seems to be the Maritimes and Prairies though some parts of Quebec have surprisingly low land cost. 
By running a house they'll see how they adapt. If they really hate it after giving it a go then perhaps that type of real estate isn't for them. But I think they'll adapt well.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

cm2u said:


> You mean it cost about $50 more a month when 2 different groups of people occupied the house?


Year not month


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> If you can't cover the mortgage at near 0% interest on the rent a property will bear in the market, perhaps that is an indication that the valuation is unwarranted and you should be investing your capital elsewhere.


Very true. But they won't move yet. And as beginners it would be nuts to buy in a different location. They'd have to be hours away to get anything remotely reasonable being in Vancouver. You either go north to Whistler where it gets even more ludicrous or east towards the Okanagen where retiree demand has shot the prices up. Of course there are small towns that would be cheap but you can't rent rooms in such places because there are almost no employers. The digital nomads tend to pick places with palm trees, not towns like Spuzzum with commanding views over the neighborhood creek. Its a very tough location. 



> Having to stack tenants like cordwood


Cordwood! I love it! "Cordwood capitalism" has arrived!



> in bedrooms (how do you get 4 adults in a typical bedroom--set it up like a military dorm)?


As I said I would work up to that slowly. It takes skillful, astute management choosing renters very carefully. Very few people in Vancouver are attempting to put more than 2 to a room. Same culture, same sex, both probably rarely there. That's an renter attribute that few people mention: How much time the typically spend at home? For some people with long hours and an active social life (pre-COVID) they may only come home for a few hours a few times a week and never eat there. Those renters would be gold. 



> What you're talking about is a flophouse and I would consider it a high maintenance, high risk business.


I wouldn't call it a flophouse but it would definitely be high maintenance and would have its share of risks. Probably better for someone that already works at home. Then they're almost always there in case some problem arises. 



> The thing that is wrong with this picture is the housing valuation. Put your money elsewhere.


For purchasing property, absolutely. But I've heard of people rerenting successfully in Vancouver. How they do it is a mystery. It definitely requires a certain type of owner: One who just wants to see that rental cheque arrive every month without fail and not to be bothered with trivialities. That type of owner will likely give the person on the lease far more autonomy. And be very open with inspections at any time so the owner feels like nothing is being hid. The main concern of course is property damage. But each tenant gives a security deposit though if they do a lot of damage that will hardly pay for it and if they have no assets small claims court will prove fruitless. Yes the risks are there.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Retiredguy said:


> Year not month


Oh, that is good news!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rerenting sounds like a recipe for disaster. A business model that is likely to blow itself up. I doubt the original landlord will take kindly to you subletting their property into a slum. The property is likely to see very heavy wear and piss off the neighbours. The landlord is likely to be keen to push such operations out.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

andrewf said:


> Rerenting sounds like a recipe for disaster. A business model that is likely to blow itself up. I doubt the original landlord will take kindly to you subletting their property into a slum. The property is likely to see very heavy wear and piss off the neighbors. The landlord is likely to be keen to push such operations out.


To clarify, by rerenting in this situation I don't mean cramming multiple people into a room. Just renting out the house as well as possible, especially choosing a property whose living/dining/laundry/rec room(s) could be rented as well. One must rent out other rooms besides bedrooms for this to work if you only have 1 person to a room. A lot of 3 br houses have 1 or 2 other rooms that can be utilized. Of course these need to be rooms where you do not need to use to get somewhere else in the house. At least 30% of older houses cooperate in this respect. Often more. Newer houses gravitating more to open concept do not. You can't utilize that space well at all. Great for keeping an eye on the kids though! By getting another 2 rooms rented can make all the difference between it costing to live there or living free or making some money each month. Of course any profit would be taxable as rental income I would think. 

I know it sounds like everything you mentioned could happen. But it does occur on occassion and they can be managed well without pissing off the neighbors. The key is clean, quiet, respectful renters. We're not talking Animal House here or Skid Road. A non-smoking, non-drinking, zero 420 place. I have a friend in Vancouver who has done it with several homes. May this person has connections with people in unique situations that require this, not sure. Personally I couldn't imagine a tougher market to make this work than in Vancouver. But hey, there are some very creative and resourceful people out there. 

Another option is to aim for older renters if students aren't so available. When I was managing a very run down, cheap, apartment building I noticed that about 99% of my problems were caused by people under 35. And about 95% under 30. And about 90% under 25. We do tend to get more sensible as we age!

Putting more people into a space will result in more wear, true. But its not as if "wear" can't be remedied by mud, sanding and paint. If the owner is inspecting their property often nothing is hidden. By encouraging the owner to pop by often it would give them huge piece of mind. In fact that may be the single biggest component in getting them to agree. Also giving perhaps twice the normal security deposit might help as well. You're right: Damage is probably the biggest concern and these are ways to calm them.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I would check your local municipality's bylaws regarding rooming houses. Most likely you would be falling afoul of them. This is basically slumlording.

I don't know if you are just looking for someone to confirm to you that this is a good idea.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

As a student I rented a room in a house that was a 4 bedroom place. The landlord had converted the den, living, and dining rooms into rooms and had put coin laundry in the laundry room. So there were 7 rooms being rented out in this single-family home. It was a hell-hole and we left before the lease was up. Thankfully I had the master bedroom with ensuite bath - everyone else shared a single shower. Even so, it was terrible. 

If you wanted to make even more money you could rent each bed to 2 people - one with a night job and one with a day job.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

cm2u said:


> Very true. But they won't move yet. And as beginners it would be nuts to buy in a different location. They'd have to be hours away to get anything remotely reasonable being in Vancouver. You either go north to Whistler where it gets even more ludicrous or east towards the Okanagen where retiree demand has shot the prices up. Of course there are small towns that would be cheap but you can't rent rooms in such places because there are almost no employers. The digital nomads tend to pick places with palm trees, not towns like Spuzzum with commanding views over the neighborhood creek. Its a very tough location.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





andrewf said:


> I would check your local municipality's bylaws regarding rooming houses. Most likely you would be falling afoul of them. This is basically slumlording.
> 
> I don't know if you are just looking for someone to confirm to you that this is a good idea.


Everywhere in the world where land is expensive people find a way of putting more people on it. I'm trying to do the same. If you're a builder you have the option of going up. But as I can't change the size of the dwelling if I'm not the owner I have to look at ways of concentration, all the while KEEPING WITHIN THE LAW. Capitalized for those of you with reading comprehension and/or memory problems.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> As a student I rented a room in a house that was a 4 bedroom place. The landlord had converted the den, living, and dining rooms into rooms and had put coin laundry in the laundry room. So there were 7 rooms being rented out in this single-family home. It was a hell-hole and we left before the lease was up.


Care to explain what were the main problems?



> Thankfully I had the master bedroom with ensuite bath - everyone else shared a single shower. Even so, it was terrible.


I find it ironic how so many people find the idea of sharing a bathroom or shower utterly intolerable in a living situation yet they look forward to sleeping in fancy hotel beds and using their showers and sit on their toilets that have been used by thousands beforehand. When gyms were open I would go months without using the shower at home. I showered at the gym every day. Why bother using the one at home if it can be done at the gym, after a nice soak in the jacuzzi or basking in the steam room/sauna? I felt so clean leaving that gym every day.



> If you wanted to make even more money you could rent each bed to 2 people - one with a night job and one with a day job.


I have to admit that was something I hadn't thought of! See all the great things we can pick up just by discussing things? 

Of course to most of us we can't imagine sharing our bedroom space with a veritable stranger. Yet all around the world people do it. I think what makes it much easier for most is they have already been sharing bedroom and living space with a lot of people at home with their family so they have learned how to co-habitate much better than we would fare. This is probably why most of the Vancouver ads for multiple people to a room were focused to draw in people from the Indian and Pakistani cultures that have done that a lot in their past. Especially when the father and mother first got married and had little money. They may have become rather affluent but our roots stay with us forever and are strong influences. As a white bread Canadian I admire their strength, patience and fortitude to be able to do this. They sacrifice their own comfort and convenience for the future. Not many of us could/would do that. And after a while of adjustment its really not bad as long as you can sleep well and have a peaceful living environment. People are surprisingly adaptable. And what's really far more admirable about this is that most of the time they sacrificed not even for themselves. It was for their children. That's true dedication.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

cm2u said:


> Care to explain what were the main problems?


Mainly that it was a student house. People would be loud late at night, leave the kitchen filthy, etc. For the shared bathroom I heard many complaints about hair in the drains and general gross conditions. One kitchen shared between 7 people leads to conflicts over fridge space. People stole things from each other's rooms. 

Our landlord was also a slumlord who was a real pain to deal with. He evicted a tenant by throwing all his things onto the lawn. The coin laundry was so expensive we preferred to take our laundry to the local laundromat.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> Mainly that it was a student house.


I think I just mentioned the problem with younger people. Almost all of my problems were caused by people under 30. I would aim for older people. If that wasn't available they would be strictly controlled with the number one requirement to be quiet at all times. If not they're gone. I've said that about 5 times.



> People would be loud late at night, leave the kitchen filthy, etc. For the shared bathroom I heard many complaints about hair in the drains and general gross conditions.


The second requirement was cleanliness and the importance of leaving a room the same way you found it. Clearly this place was haphazardly managed. They simply didn't care. That's not sustainable. Messy people should live in their own space. Its the only sane choice.



> One kitchen shared between 7 people leads to conflicts over fridge space.


Fridges are very cheap. Mini fridges are about $40-60 used. Solution: Buy more fridges. Clearly there wasn't enough fridge space.



> People stole things from each other's rooms.


Remember I mentioned the necessity of a storage locker?



> Our landlord was also a slumlord who was a real pain to deal with. He evicted a tenant by throwing all his things onto the lawn.


Remember I mentioned the importance of amiable management with a calm attitude?


> The coin laundry was so expensive we preferred to take our laundry to the local laundromat.


Well that was your choice of course. Everyone knew the cost before renting. Clearly not management's fault. Shower more and watch your laundry needs plummet.

All the points you mentioned are commonly experienced with shared accommodation. That landlord was just stupid. For single, poorer people it can be a good way to live as loneliness when living alone can be a real problem that creeps up on people very slowly over the years. I've met older guys who have lived in a house for more then 20 years. Think they don't have a tight community? Its almost impossible getting into places like that. They're run logically and fairly. And more affluent people often move into a retirement community. Not much different except its a lot nicer and costs a lot more. But the motives/results are the same. Community.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Tostig said:


> ...That is good news but what percentage of tenants do you think would need to get insurance to get into your building?


My experience as a renter was 100% as I had to show the policy to the landlord.




Tostig said:


> ... I'm just wondering how many you lose because of this stipulation. Or is it so common in your area that most have it already?


No idea but there were far more looking to rent than rental spaces available. AFAICT, the land lord would move on to the next person.



Tostig said:


> ... And what does it cost for most people to get liability insurance and can they get it without coverage of their property for a reduced cost?


Locally it's called "renters" or "tenant" insurance. For similar dollar values, it was significantly cheaper than coverage for a family home of the same size. 


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Rerenting sounds like a recipe for disaster. A business model that is likely to blow itself up. I doubt the original landlord will take kindly to you subletting their property into a slum ...


When my sister picked up a sub-let for the summer, part of the owner's requirement was for both the original renter and my sister to meet with the owner's rep.

Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

cm2u said:


> I think just mentioned the problem with younger people. Almost all of my problems were caused by people under 30. I would aim for older people. If that wasn't available they would be strictly controlled with the number one requirement to be quiet at all times. If not they're gone. I've said that about 5 times.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This sounds like a fantasy. How do you consistently find this group of 30+ year old destitutes looking to live in a den without windows or closets, yet is quiet as a church mouse, meticulously tidy and cleans up the bathroom and kitchen immediately. Usually the people who have their **** together and are over 30 years of age are not poor enough to need to live in a rooming house. You're talking about policing tenants and evicting them without due process for being a bit noisy or untidy. Try it and get back to us with your experience.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> This sounds like a fantasy. How do you consistently find this group of 30+ year old destitutes looking to live in a den without windows or closets, yet is quiet as a church mouse, meticulously tidy and cleans up the bathroom and kitchen immediately.


I think he's looking for desperate new immigrants to exploit.


----------



## santi (Oct 21, 2019)

Look into resort style areas and you may be able to find spots you can do something similar to this legally. Just be sure to check zoning and tenancy regulations etc


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

He should just move to the US and do it there. He can probably exploit some undocumented immigrants who are afraid of standing up for their rights. Compared to Canada, renters in America don't have too many rights.

An added benefit of the US is that when he's eventually hauled in front of a judge, he might get lucky and get a racist/conservative judge who's sympathetic to how he exploits the poor immigrants.

Just be careful to not piss off the wrong guy. May I also suggest getting a life insurance policy.


----------



## ludetuner (Dec 28, 2016)

...


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

cm2u said:


> I think just mentioned the problem with younger people. Almost all of my problems were caused by people under 30. I would aim for older people ...


It could be a challenge as most of the rooming houses that I have visited or lived in had few of these types. 

Then too, as it was a rooming house, it seemed like half of those meeting the criteria kept up with the younger folks that were causing problems.




cm2u said:


> ... The second requirement was cleanliness and the importance of leaving a room the same way you found it. Clearly this place was haphazardly managed. They simply didn't care.


Sure ... but employers who have quite the stick have similar problems with shared areas.




cm2u said:


> ... All the points you mentioned are commonly experienced by shared accommodation people. That landlord was just stupid. Stupid is not very profitable because its not easily replicatible. The problem is people don't use what they learn to improve their shared accommodation experience. For single, poorer people it can be a good way to live as loneliness when living alone can be a real problem that creeps up on people very slowly over the years.


Sure ... but then again, smaller numbers has usually been the way that people start behaving properly and building community. With the past history of lots of space, I'm not sure how the contrast of needing several people per room and getting people to behave well will work out or be repeatable.


Cheers


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

andrewf said:


> This sounds like a fantasy. How do you consistently find this group of 30+ year old destitutes looking to live in a den without windows or closets, yet is quiet as a church mouse, meticulously tidy and cleans up the bathroom and kitchen immediately. Usually the people who have their **** together and are over 30 years of age are not poor enough to need to live in a rooming house. You're talking about policing tenants and evicting them without due process for being a bit noisy or untidy. Try it and get back to us with your experience.


I did say any rentable room needed to have an opening window, didn't I? I think I've said that more than once. I've found 30+ people are a lot quieter and neater and more respectful than under 30 people but you're right: Its harder to bring them in. There's certainly less of them out there looking for a place. I wouldn't say I wouldn't consider younger people but I'd just screen them a lot more carefully. Especially males. 
And its not about people needing to live in a cheap place. Its about people determined to save a lot of money annually. It can be thousands. If you're an immigrant bent on starting a business with no credit history so you have to use your own money this is one way of not spending much on accommodation. Ever wonder why it seems that the businesses of immigrants seem to do better on average than those of Canadians? I think its because often they are not using borrowed money. When they start their business they don't furnish the office with brand new stuff. They hunt down FB Marketplace and Craigslist and grind people down as best they can to get the best deals possible because they've sacrificed so much for that money. A Canadian will just take out a bigger loan to get new office furniture. Something that depreciates very fast and is very hard to sell later. When storms arise guess which type of business will be more willing to bend to the market, to adapt to different customer preferences? 

And I'm not talking about evicting someone for leaving the toilet seat up. I'm talking about a slob that misrepresented themselves and is intolerable to live with. Basically if people can't leave a room as they found it they're difficult to live with. It sounds regimental and inflexible but its just the way it is with shared accommodation. I'm quite a messy person but I found when living in shared accommodation I changed and realized how crucial it is for everyone to do this. Plus, it not difficult to do. 

As for noise, the standards for that really have to be high. People cannot read if someone is loudly talking nearby or has turned up the volume of their movie. Its just common sense when people are living in close proximity. Its why earbuds/headphones are so important. 

There's another factor I was thinking about: Most people that would consider living in a high concentration environment probably aren't there much anyway. Just to sleep and eat a meal. If most people aren't there most of the time....that makes things a whole lot easier. Obviously this wouldn't work for people on assistance that are home for much of the day.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

james4beach said:


> I think he's looking for desperate new immigrants to exploit.


LOL...well the only ones "exploiting" others I see are those that are trying to get their own culture to rent with them! I'm just a white bread Canadian that tries to learn from other cultures. They're just determined to pay that mortgage with as much rental income as they possibly can.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

In my experience, it is usually a couple of families (often related) living together in a house to help get each other on their feet before moving into their own housing. I'm not familiar with this rooming house situation. I'm guessing this has to be in an urban area where people don't need a car to function. I don't see how you don't end up with the dregs of society and all the problems that entails. My parents' friends owned and managed a low-end/geared to income apartment building. They kept on having to look for new plumbers to fish used syringes out of the toilets when they clogged. They ended up renovating and condo-izing the building. I would think rooming houses have very high tenant turn-over. Basically housing of last resort.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> It could be a challenge as most of the rooming houses that I have visited or lived in had few of these types.


True. But rooming houses tend to be in run down parts of the city and they cater often to alcoholics that have lost their families/careers because of it. I wouldn't permit alcohol of any kind. It would simply be house rules that everyone would agree on before renting. When I specified alcohol free I actually had no problem getting people that wanted to live in my building and it was situated in a lousy part of the city, but not downtown near the bars. Personally I think a lot of people would rent in such a place if it was respectful, quiet and clean. Rooming houses are almost never respectful, quiet and clean. Remember this is shared accommodation. 



> Sure ... but then again, smaller numbers has usually been the way that people start behaving properly and building community.


It can definitely help.



> With the past history of lots of space, I'm not sure how the contrast of needing several people per room and getting people to behave well will work out or be repeatable.


I think its smarter to focus on cultures that already do that often in family situations. They are just better mentally adapted to it. I agree its not so easy. I'm not insinuating it is by any means. The way to do it is to ease into it. First there's one to a room with any room with an opening window that can be used as a fire escape rented. Then there's 2 to a room. Then more over time as you get ideas. You know its often tenants that suggest it when they have a friend that needs a place to stay. Often the landlord is very surprised. If one was buying a house and planning this soundproofing would be an important ingredient of the renovations. But.....if there were multiple people in a room, maybe it wouldn't be as important as then it would crucial for everyone to be very quiet! What can I say....the subject fascinates me because it enables one to purchase in a much wider range of properties and still keep your head above water financially.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> In my experience, it is usually a couple of families (often related) living together in a house to help get each other on their feet before moving into their own housing.


Yes, mine too. Its a new concept, definitely, to live with others in the same room, in Canada. Even small children here often have their own room! It starts so early. But in many cultures this seems very odd and would be thought to impart loneliness to the occupant to be segregated from the others. 



> I'm not familiar with this rooming house situation. I'm guessing this has to be in an urban area where people don't need a car to function.


The areas I'm seeing it done are nowhere near the sketchy parts. They are in lower middle class areas of the city where property is a little cheaper. But the interiors are spotless and modern. And always not far from rapid transit. But rapid transit is well done in these cities. Having a cheap bike (so it won't get stolen) and riding to the bus stop is also an option. You see that done in so many gigantic cities around the world. 



> I don't see how you don't end up with the dregs of society and all the problems that entails.


Well almost all dregs smoke. So just filtering out smokers gets rid of that. And most dregs don't work. Working would be a prerequisite. And most drink and this wouldn't allow alcohol. People go where they will feel comfortable. They would be repelled from all sides in my kind of place. But because of these standards I think it would also attract others longing for such a place. 



> My parents' friends owned and managed a low-end/geared to income apartment building. They kept on having to look for new plumbers to fish used syringes out of the toilets when they clogged. They ended up renovating and condo-izing the building. I would think rooming houses have very high tenant turn-over. Basically housing of last resort.


I agree. Most do because they have low standards for entrance. Smoking/working/alcohol standards really filter out those people. After all very few non-drinkers and non-smokers want to live around their polar opposites! I would even attempt to ban incense and candles just because they're a fire hazard! The fire in our building was caused by some daft girl high on weed that knocked over her candle! Candles are a menace and cause a lot of fires. Think of how easy it is to knock them over if they are by your bed and you move while sleeping and your comforter knocks them over. You're asleep so you don't wake up until the fire is raging. Plus people often use them at night and that's when people are most likely to be sleepy. Just say no to candles. And incense just pollutes the air with smoke. CBC just had an article the other day about how the government is trying to wake people up to the dangers of fireplace smoke, both inside and out and how it pollutes the neighborhood destroying the air for many houses around them. Some cities have banned fireplace use because of this. We can only hope it will catch on everywhere and people will really value and appreciate good air.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

ludetuner said:


> ...


Ahh, ludetuner, thank you for that eloquent post. An exemplar of economy of language. You say it best, when you say nothing at all.


----------



## ludetuner (Dec 28, 2016)

Mukhang pera said:


> Ahh, ludetuner, thank you for that eloquent post. An exemplar of economy of language. You say it best, when you say nothing at all.


 I was going to respond but realized how ridiculous this thread topic is.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

ludetuner said:


> I was going to respond but realized how ridiculous this thread topic is.


Ridiculous is a good word for it.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

ludetuner said:


> I was going to respond but realized how ridiculous this thread topic is.


I'd sure be interested in knowing how you pay your mortgage on a rental house by the rental income in areas where the land is very expensive. Just how do you cover a million dollar mortgage with a 2 or 3 bedroom house? Its about 5 times what it would be in a sensibly priced area but unfortunately the rental income is often not even double. Its often just 50% more! So there is a problem. Pray tell, what do you suggest to bridge that gap? Because in all the comments so far, not one has offered a solution to this vexing dilemma for real estate investors. We're all ears! Because it seems that almost all investors have relegated themselves to the depressing dilemma of paying it out of their ample income in hopes of a huge capital gain in the not to distance future. Would that be a correct assumption?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Why speculate on real estate that can't be carried on its rent?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Because someone (the OP who opened this obscene thread) has been brainwashed and now trying to brainwash others here in order to validate the legality of what he/she wants to attempt. 

I hope when the OP's friends tells that jumping off a cliff will give you a longlife, he/she will do just that instead of coming over to this forum trying to convince others to follow. EOM.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

andrewf said:


> Why speculate on real estate that can't be carried on its rent?


So that's your way of saying, in your opinion, it can't be done. Right? You have no solution at all to this problem? If so that's fine. The solutions are unusual, unorthodox and may not work. They definitely involve significant risk, especially for people unfamiliar with shared accommodation and by unfamiliar I mean those that haven't actually lived in that situation themselves to experience it first hand. I personally think this is the biggest reason these ideas meet such resistance. They just seem odd. 

Look, my point is many people seem to be getting into these situations or get into real estate in areas that change over time so after a while they're in a risky situation where they stand to lose everything and their back is against the wall.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Because someone (the OP who opened this obscene thread) has been brainwashed and now trying to brainwash others here in order to validate the legality of what he/she wants to attempt.
> 
> I hope when the OP's friends tells that jumping off a cliff will give you a longlife, he/she will do just that instead of coming over to this forum trying to convince others to follow. EOM.


Nice of you to be so specific. This way I can't really reply to anything. Well done! 

So you've given up on high cost real estate as well? Its not easy, I admit. Just wondering what you would do faced with losing your property in such a situation. Its easy to say "I wouldn't have bought it in the first place". How about a strategy? Beavers are very industrious creatures. Surely you have a plan!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

If you already own, why not sell? You shouldn't be underwater unless you refinanced. I mean, if you can only make the numbers work by running a rooming house (which is not an easy or simple proposition), what you are doing is speculating on the increase in value of the property. But, that seems kind of questionable to me when the rental yield is so low that tends to indicate that the valuation is already quite stretched and price appreciation is likely to be subdued (or perhaps negative). There are lots of potential investments out there beyond real estate in some of the most expensive markets in the country. Just as Just a Guy...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cm2u said:


> Nice of you to be so specific. This way I can't really reply to anything. Well done!


 ... so why are you replying? Regardless, it was you who said in an earlier post, your friends have done this (with success?) so why not follow.



> So you've given up on high cost real estate as well? Its not easy, I admit. Just wondering what you would do faced with losing your property in such a situation. Its easy to say "I wouldn't have bought it in the first place". How about a strategy? Beavers are very industrious creatures. Surely you have a plan!


 ... no need for a "strategy", especially yours/your friends ... an illegal one. I would be surprised the ever-so-clever one didn't have a plan (use of the property, financing, etc.) PRIOR to the purchase instead the not so smart one who would have just followed the simple plan: *can't afford it, then don't buy it*. Stop the scheming nonsenses ...EOM.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

andrewf said:


> ... There are lots of potential investments out there beyond real estate in some of the most expensive markets in the country. *Just as Just a Guy...*


 ... great suggestion ... OP should ask Just a Guy ... he's the RE guru on this forum, making a killing out there on real real estate. No one can beat his "secrets", and "systems" with his super-successful RE investments ... the guy got a RE empire.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> ... so why are you replying?


You responded so I'm responding. Forums kind of work like that. 



> Regardless, it was you who said in an earlier post, your friends have done this (with > success?) so why not follow.


I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that I posted this not for myself but for others starting out in real estate who live in cities with high land costs where renting normally, even renting out the living and dining rooms as bedrooms still wouldn't come close to paying the mortgage. For the people that didn't think this was possible I pointed out that I have seen several people in more than one location doing it online (renting more than one person to a room). I don't know these people. 



> .. no need for a "strategy", especially yours/your friends ... an illegal one.


I keep on saying the only way to do this is to abide by zoning laws. I think this is the 4th or 5th time I've repeated this. If one ignored the laws it would just be a matter of time before you'd get shut down UNLESS that area is not enforcing those laws because of high rental demand and public pressure. But it would have to have adequate fire exits and safety - that is without question. Many immigrants don't want to raise attention to themselves so they are less likely to report the landlord for safety issues. This may be what some unscrupulous landlords bank on. I'm not that kind of person. Also it often doesn't take much to make something safe for fire regulations. You have to know what is expected before embarking on this obviously. In some places this just couldn't be done.



> I would be surprised the ever-so-clever one didn't have a plan (use of the property, financing, etc.) PRIOR to the purchase instead the not so smart one who would have just followed the simple plan: can't afford it, then don't buy it. Stop the scheming nonsense ...EOM.


Why do you think I ask questions here? To learn! Also during discussion often new ideas emerge we can use in situations we hadn't planned. I just find discussion very good for business. Others look at our ideas with a different perspective which can shed new light on our plans and be very helpful. 

Think of how some people do so well in real estate: Its often because they find value in places that others didn't; by not giving up even though they didn't see a solution immediately. 

Remember, I didn't claim this was some foolproof strategy. I simply ASKED if people are considering doing something unusual to generate more revenue. That's it. Or if they've heard about it. Clearly, in this group, so far, nobody has. That's fine. Maybe someone else will pipe up later. That's how forums work. Patience is rewarded. 

Look, nobody would do this kind of strategy unless their back was against the wall - that is clear. Its a management headache to be sure, requiring a lot of hands on attention. I'm not saying its easy or even desirable. 

I wonder if a highly populated residence might work better as a Homestay situation where food is included. That way everyone isn't crowding the kitchen. They text in their orders and its done for them. People pay a lot more for Homestay scenarios. Often 40% more. I might be on to something! Homestay also might be a lot more efficient if done on a larger scale. Perfect for a stay at home person that likes food prep and people in general.

And of course there's no way this could work during COVID.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

> ... And of course there's no way this could work during COVID.


 ... what a mobius strip. Sum it up for you - this wouldn't work even *PRIOR *to Covid.

I suggest you seek out the OP santi in post #67, he/she is a Mortgage Expert licensed in BC / SK, Real Estate Investor and Enthusiast (in waiting) so I'm sure you can get the help you need.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> Sum it up for you - this wouldn't work even *PRIOR *to Covid.


Ah....people are doing it right now. I've been telling you this for days. Not a lot of people but significant numbers. A lot more in Vancouver than in cheaper cities of course. I didn't check Toronto but it inevitably done there too. Just check rentals at a little lower than what a shared room normally goes for. In cheap cities its usually $400-550 but in Toronto its probably $600-800. So you'd filter the price from $250-500 to spot them. At first they look like single occupancy....but obviously nobody, especially an immigrant fighting for each penny saved, would ever rent for 30-40% less than normal prices. 

Now whether its legal in their area I do not know. Or maybe the city there doesn't care or doesn't bother to prosecute. But its definitely being done. 



> I suggest you seek out the OP santi in post #67, he/she is a Mortgage Expert licensed in BC / SK, Real Estate Investor and Enthusiast (in waiting) so I'm sure you can get the help you need.


Appreciate the tip. I don't understand your use of the term OP (original post or poster?) here as I'm the originator of this thread. I did find post #67 where it was suggested to look at resort property. That is different to be sure. But in most parts of Canada nobody wants to go to a resort property for about half the year! Personally I'd love to live/manage one though. This would be great for a tropical destination if one could deal with the customs/culture/taxes there. I'm sure many expats buy a house and rent out a room or two dipping their toes in the water, then gradually expand the house, later buying/building a small hotel if they don't die first. At least most countries in the tropics have little in the way of zoning restrictions. That would be pleasant. 

But I've found realtors to be surprisingly uncreative though I have to admit I haven't interacted with very many. Every one so far has the creativity of a rock. They're like robots blabbering the same recycled scripts we've heard a million times before. As soon as they suspect you are not going to be an "easy customer" they kind of tune you out and their attention drifts to their phone hoping for a more conventional, predictable customer. I suppose if I was shopping in more affluent circles the grade of realtor would be much higher as well. Maybe the business is extremely structured so it doesn't draw in creative types.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I wasn't going to respond, but I will play because I think the OP is just playing as they have indicated they are a retiree with lots of money and I don't think he is really that stupid to listen what I am going to say.

Random considerations & assumptions to see the feasibility (will be dependent province, by laws, ect.). 
- Many areas have laws on what the minimum square footage required per person in a living space. It's often a combination of the specific size of the room along with other living spaces. Most take out the kitchen area, bathroom, hallways out of the equation. Each living area must also meet certain requirements such windows/or more than one escape route. There are also laws about having hot plates and cooking appliances in not kitchen areas. You can't just have a person put in a hot plate. 


So let's say you have a 2000 sq ft house, with 1500 square appropriate space (easy numbers). We will assumer each person needs 150 square feet ( I have seen some as high at 180, but I am not an expert) then you could have 10 people in this house. If the rent for this house was $3000K plus utilities you may be able to get $500 a person, I would even say less, as I am basing the rate on how much someone would have to pay for a basement suite which this is worse then. So you would get an extra $1500 or so (after higher utilities)
Running the numbers for an apartment or condo would be worst. In an apartment there are many more rules to follow and higher likely hood of someone complaining.

- Next consideration is finding the house place to do this. Any rental lease I have ever signed requires landlord approval of any changes of people living there including roommates, etc. . My leases also have a provision that is someone is there for more than 2 weeks in the month as a 'guest', they must notify us. There is also a maximum number of people listed that can occupy the place along with the maximum number of 'guests' at any time. I cannot imagine any landlord knowingly agreeing to let someone have a rooming house. So that would mean that you would have to buy your own home or place to do this. 

- As the owner of the place, there is an insurance requirement. On rentals, every few years you must fill out a disclosure on the number of tenants that you have living in a place along with a whole bunch of other information such as if there are multiple families living in the dwelling. That determines your rates. A couple of our rentals have legal basement suites, the rate goes up if you have someone upstairs and downstairs, and that's legally. More people, more cooking areas, equates to higher risks. 


Let's look at the type of people you will get into these places. Many people will be lower income as higher income people will not want to subject themselves to such an environment. So the type of people you may get are
Young people just moving out: Students - the ones that are serious about their education (the ones that you want) will want a place that is quiet so they can study, they won't want to share their room. Young people in general on their own are usually not very clean, quiet, or that responsible. Unless you are living with them and can 'herd' them along, I would not leave a larger group of young people who are not students in anything I owned.
People who aren't at home very often with the main reason they are not home very often is because they are working. You don't want someone who isn't home often because they are our partying. This probably someone who either works shift work (in which they will want someone on a similar schedule, so they can sleep without people stomping around while they are trying to sleep, so that will be a difficult logistics piece. You may also people who have other accommodation for their work. My former live in nanny rented a room in a rooming house for a few months. She said it was okay when it was a few of her friends that all did it (they were also nannies), then when others come in, the drama hit, things started going missing, and it was really difficult from a schedule wise. My dad also lived in a room house when he first arrived in Canada 60 years ago (less legislation, would be illegal now). I was same guys that manage to get off the boat together. One of them knew someone who had a place, and there up to 7 or 8 of them all sleeping in a 2 bedroom, so they could send save and send money home. This this brings us back to primarily immigrants starting out or unruly students. It most definitely helps if the people know each other and like each other.

So looking at this, there are so many factors to try to get them to align with a lot of risk. There would be a lot of work involved to make a couple thousand a month. I have experience in rentals, and this would be would an absolute nightmare for me personally. I have been considering for years of buying a place for my kids when they leave for university to live in and manage as low cost housing, and experience. I know many people that have done this in the past, and even in a shared accommodation, there are a lot challenges. I would never want to live in a rooming house even if I owed it, nor would I want my kids too.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

You make some very good points. My responses below.......
---------------


> I wasn't going to respond, but I will play because I think the OP is just playing as they have indicated they are a retiree with lots of money and I don't think he is really that stupid to listen what I am going to say.


No. I've said that I didn't post this specifically for myself. I'm interested in the subject, yes, but this was posted for a couple of people interested in getting into real estate but they live in areas where it can be difficult to meet mortgage payments with the rental income unless the landlord is very resourceful. And I've said I don't know if it would be legal in most cities. And I've repeatedly stressed the necessity of being fire safe. 



> Random considerations & assumptions to see the feasibility (will be dependent province, by laws, etc.).


Of course.



> - Many areas have laws on what the minimum square footage required per person in a living space. It's often a combination of the specific size of the room along with other living spaces. Most take out the kitchen area, bathroom, hallways out of the equation.


That's what I assumed. It does seem logical. Its good to hear though. 



> There are also laws about having hot plates and cooking appliances in non-kitchen areas. You can't just have a person put in a hot plate.


Depends how its installed. If its bolted to a steel bracket and that steel bracket is bolted to the wall its very secure. For that type of install its legal in my city. It may not be in other areas. But common sense would dictate the landlord would be wise to minimize cooking equipment as much as possible. I think the problem is usually grease catching fire from people frying. If we could just ban frying pans the place would be so fire safe!



> So let's say you have a 2000 sq ft house, with 1500 square appropriate space (easy numbers). We will assume each person needs 150 square feet ( I have seen some as high as 180, but I am not an expert)


In my poorer city the average seems to be around 100-120 sq ft. 



> then you could have 10 people in this house.


How are you doing this? How many people are you allocating to each room? And doesn't the city care if there are a lot of people packed into a room? Or are they just looking at sq footage, in this case being 1500? So that's just for the bedrooms? You say each person needs 150 sq feet. Where are these 10 people being housed? I would be very surprised if this was legal in most cities. It seems very congested as a 2000 sq ft house is probably a 3 or 4 bedroom layout. I thought 2 to a room might be doable in most areas, 3 to a room in a few. Any more than that I thought you'd have to be out of town where nobody checks or even cares. Like farmland. 



> If the rent for this house was $3000


That seems kind of high but in high priced areas I suppose not.



> plus utilities you may be able to get $500 a person, I would even say less, as I am basing the rate on how much someone would have to pay for a basement suite which this is worse then. So you would get an extra $1500 or so (after higher utilities)


In the ads I've seen in expensive areas they're getting about $300-450 with several people to a room. Probably 3 or 4. 



> Running the numbers for an apartment or condo would be worst. In an apartment there are many more rules to follow and higher likely hood of someone complaining.


Oh definitely. 
But there are advantages to apartment buildings/condos: Coming and going is noticed less because nobody hangs out in the hallways. I was living next to several people (I heard later it was 8!) in a 1 br apartment for about 2 years and had no clue. I rarely heard anything from that side and they never made any noise to speak of. I never in 2 years saw them enter or leave the apartment. That's the apartment building advantage. When people see others come and go at the front door they don't know what floor they're going to let alone which unit unless they happen to live nearby. In a house you have to leave by a door and most doors are visible by neighbors. Unless you're smart and cagey and put hedges/trees around blocking the view! People are much less obtrusive if they come and go from the back door usually. 



> Next consideration is finding the house place to do this. Any rental lease I have ever signed requires landlord approval of any changes of people living there including roommates, etc. .


Good point. Definitely finding a cooperative owner can be challenging. In my city I know someone who listened to my suggestions and within 3 months had secured 2 houses. I would never advise someone starting out to go with 2 as you can't be in 2 places at the same time but one of them he advertised for immigrant female students and they gave him no headaches so he hardly ever had to be there. Lucky break I guess. The other one was in a rougher area of the city and though the profit potential was far higher there, the headaches also were far higher there. Obviously its best to start with just one location until its really running smoothly. Now I should mention he was just re-renting the house to make a little and live free originally. But then he got the 2nd one which was probably a mistake. 



> My leases also have a provision that if someone is there for more than 2 weeks in the month as a 'guest', they must notify us.


Yes, that is common. Makes sense. People can "slide in" quietly if you're not on top of things. If they drive/park their car nearby its harder to be unseen though. 



> There is also a maximum number of people listed that can occupy the place along with the maximum number of 'guests' at any time. I cannot imagine any landlord knowingly agreeing to let someone have a rooming house. So that would mean that you would have to buy your own home or place to do this.


Oh it definitely happens but I'm presuming that the owner is one who is sick of managing the place and is letting someone take care of things because they have developed good trust in them. Or....the owner is going to vigilantly check up on the place as its filling up to make sure there is no damage. But you're right: Finding someone that is OK with this scenario is the hardest part of making it work and it would be far easier if you owned the place. 



> - As the owner of the place, there is an insurance requirement. On rentals, every few years you must fill out a disclosure on the number of tenants that you have living in a place along with a whole bunch of other information such as if there are multiple families living in the dwelling. That determines your rates. A couple of our rentals have legal basement suites, the rate goes up if you have someone upstairs and downstairs, and that's legally. More people, more cooking areas, equates to higher risks.


Makes sense from an insurance standpoint. About how much more was it if there were say double the people there compared to before?



> Let's look at the type of people you will get into these places. Many people will be lower income as higher income people will not want to subject themselves to such an environment. So the type of people you may get are


young people just moving out: Students - the ones that are serious about their education (the ones that you want) will want a place that is quiet so they can study, they won't want to share their room. 

You're thinking of typical Canadians. But that's not the demographic these landlords are seeking. None are looking for born in Canada Canadians. At least I haven't found any yet. No, they are seeking work til you drop, new immigrant students, bent on making a success of their new life here. People that go to school full time and work full time sleeping 4-5 hours a night, 7 days a week for months without a day off because they also work weekends. Canadians cannot fathom making sacrifices like that. (I sure wouldn't!) People like this, first of all, are hardly ever home. They'll use the library to study probably as its roomier and they have research materials right there. And its at school close to other things as well. School/work/sleep. That's their life til they have their degree. Then they may work 2 jobs out of university to buy a house to look more appealing to their prospective, procreating wife! How they meet anyone to start a family boggles the mind. But they do. 



> Young people in general on their own are usually not very clean, quiet, or that responsible.


Canadians, absolutely. But many immigrants are far more disciplined. 



> Unless you are living with them and can 'herd' them along, I would not leave a larger group of young people who are not students in anything I owned.


Yes, I've also repeatedly stressed the importance of living at your property so you're on top of any problems when they arise and can nip them in the bud as soon as possible. And when people are living congested problems will arise. 



> People who aren't at home very often with the main reason they are not home very often is because they are working.


Or working and going to school. Or working multiple jobs. Once again you're referencing 40 hour a week Canadians. These people don't slouch around like that. Some work 2 full time jobs during the week and something else on the weekends. My head would explode if I had to do that. 



> You don't want someone who isn't home often because they are our partying.


These people don't even mentally grasp such a concept as partying. 



> This is probably someone who either works shift work (in which they will want someone on a similar schedule, so they can sleep without people stomping around while they are trying to sleep, so that will be a difficult logistics piece.


Now you've hit on a very important and challenging aspect of multiple people per room. Noise. Not everyone likes earplugs and even earplugs only lower the volume. They don't block noise at all. And they cause problems like wax buildup if used every night and probably are linked to Tinnitus with long term use. Earplugs are not a solution.

What would be a solution is a soundproof sleeping chamber for each person. There's nothing commercial out there at a reasonable cost so you'd have to use recording room soundproofing techniques to make them. Basically a box within a box with a clever entrance way and ventilation from outside bringing in fresh air through sound absorbing ducting. Not easy but not impossible. Lots of info is available for soundproofing ductwork since inline fans need to be suppressed in most buildings. Pot growers also employ these techniques to hide their growup from people close by. But then people could sleep undisturbed at any time of the day, no matter if people were talking right beside the bed. They need to be rigged up with an alarm of some sort though to wake people in the event of an emergency. Not difficult. You could stack these probably at least 3 high, perhaps 4. And as they are soundproof you could dedicate one room just for sleeping for everyone if you could rig up the ventilation. And the ventilation would have to work if the power went off so a UPS (Uninterrupted Power Supply used for computers) would need to be used. And 2 fans for each in case one malfunctioned. Air would be exhausted outside as well of course or maybe it could just seep out through the cracks in the room. As long as fresh air is being pushed into each compartment it wouldn't really matter. This would also be excellent for shift workers or graveyard workers. Having one room just for sleeping (that could also be soundproofed a little) is a really interesting concept. Another room could be a work area. Just long tables with ethernet connections (as well as WiFi) and AC connections. You could supply large monitors for people to plug in their tiny laptops so they don't have to squint at their little screens. You can buy 24" monitors for about $50 used now! They even have phones out (high end only for now) that you can plug in your USB keyboard/mouse and big monitor. I think Samsung was the first last year. This is totally the future. Imagine going to a coffee shop or restaurant alone and just plugging in your phone/life and be immersed in a big screen. Most people would be fine with using their own earbuds I think. And with virus concerns nobody would be comfortable sharing headphones anyway. 



> You may also people who have other accommodation for their work. My former live in nanny rented a room in a rooming house for a few months. She said it was okay when it was a few of her friends that all did it (they were also nannies), then when others come in, the drama hit, things started going missing, and it was really difficult from a schedule wise.


She sounds Filipino and Filipinos tend to have a high degree of trust for others coming from that culture. I'm guessing the new people weren't Filipinos and didn't have the same degree of honesty or allegiance to the people there. I did mention the need for some sort of secure storage for everyone. Something like a heavy duty locker. You could use video surveillance but few people would be comfortable with that and it would be illegal without everyone's consent. When people steal the food of others its a real pain though. So petty and irritating. Maybe you'd have to employ small fridges that are shared amongst 2 people, with a lock. If something is stolen at least you know who it was!



> My dad also lived in a rooming house when he first arrived in Canada 60 years ago (less legislation, would be illegal now). It was the same guys that managed to get off the boat together. One of them knew someone who had a place, and there up to 7 or 8 of them all sleeping in a 2 bedroom, so they could save and send money home. This this brings us back to primarily immigrants starting out or unruly students. It most definitely helps if the people know each other and like each other.


Culture bonding can be very useful. You cite a very important example of how they were determined to put money aside and saving on accommodation really helped them do that. Also, if someone comes to Canada without education (and even educated people often need years of qualifying accreditation!), starting a business is the most logical thing they could do, especially if they don't speak English and came here when they were older so learning the language is a very arduous task they try to avoid by just associating with their own culture here. Think of the corner store. Everything is displayed and priced - no talking is necessary. Money/numbers is an international language. 



> So looking at this, there are so many factors to try to get them to align with a lot of risk. There would be a lot of work involved to make a couple thousand a month. I have experience in rentals, and this would be would an absolute nightmare for me personally. I have been considering for years of buying a place for my kids when they leave for university to live in and manage as low cost housing, and experience. I know many people that have done this in the past, and even in a shared accommodation, there are a lot challenges. I would never want to live in a rooming house even if I owed it, nor would I want my kids too.


Like I said, you start conventionally and try unconventional things and if they don't work discontinue them. For most situations though, in reasonably priced cities, just renting out the living room can often pay for the rent along with the bedrooms. Just adding 1 room (especially as a living room is quite a bit larger so it would rent for more) can make a huge difference to the bottom line. 

The point is to live free AND have control over the house, especially the outdoor area which could be all yours really. If you like doing things around the house outside this could be a huge factor. 

Start with re-renting and if you can make it work legally and it doesn't fry your mind, THEN buy a house. 
And if you're buying a house, it might be best to look at one that needs a lot of work and priced appropriately but that has a cooperative layout (with rentable rooms that have windows or could have windows) so you don't have to use a room to get somewhere else. Like many living rooms are used to get to another room. Can't have that. If one was doing a lot of renovating you could do so many things to raise the rental revenue and make it better. The simple truth is a lot of homes now (especially open concept styles) wouldn't work at all for this because you need to segregate spaces and parents want to keep an eye/ear on their children at all times. So its the opposite of what we would want: Total soundproofing between each bedroom. If you were renovating you could make it the way you want, for maximum revenue. You just have to have a good idea of what everything will cost! Best to be a very pessimistic buyer.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ This seems like an alien hypothesizing about human habitation of residences. You are a human right? 

The only time I think something along these lines could work is a person buying a home and living in one room, while renting the other rooms in the home to other young singles/couples for short tenancies (likely 1-2 years). More than one person per bedroom _not romantically involved_ is, I think, bonkers. Maybe a single parent and a child, though I'm not sure that's even legal. 

Most extreme I have seen is something like a crash pad for airline workers who just need somewhere to sleep in another city. But it is not their primary residence.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> This seems like an alien hypothesizing about human habitation of residences. You are a human right?


It appears so, yes. But I'll have to confirm and get back to you on that. 



> The only time I think something along these lines could work is a person buying a home and living in one room, while renting the other rooms in the home to other young singles/couples for short tenancies (likely 1-2 years).


Well of course that's the way its usually done. Mortgage helpers I think they're called. But if they don't rent out other rooms like the living or dining rooms (if they have a window for a fire escape) then they're not really extracting anywhere near what they could. Remember that as an owner you have use of other rooms that cannot be rented due to no window or fire escape and so its not as if you have to pack your entire existence into your bedroom. Using a desk/bed combination would save a lot of space as well if your layout permits. Either like this if you have the ceiling height:



http://homesfeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/simple-and-minimalist-loft-bed-combo-furniture-with-workstation-and-storage-underneath-a-simple-black-chair-a-grey-rug-for-floors-a-table-lamp-a-laptop-a-globe.jpg



or a Murphy type bed (usually better if mounted horizontally on the wall instead of the usual vertical fashion) or a slideout or pull-out bed (the best for space, especially if you have a low ceiling) 



https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fmakezine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F07%2Fbedroom5.jpg%3Fresize%3D1200%252C670%26strip%3Dall%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1



or



https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fmakezine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F07%2Fbedroom5.jpg%3Fresize%3D1200%252C670%26strip%3Dall%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1



The wheels on the last one were ridiculously big! And the floor area on top wasn't oriented logically. It should be along the wall, not perpendicular to it. Then it wouldn't need to be so deep. Fine if you've got a king size bed under there!

Another option is to have a very narrow mattress and flip it up against the wall under the bed when not in use during the day. The point is a bed wastes a huge amount of space during the day. Another space saver if no desk is there is to place the bed in the middle of the room on a frame with drawers/shelves under it. Sleep close to the ceiling, say at the 6' level. Below that you would have about a 7' x 5' space by say 5 levels equaling 35 x 5 = 165 sq ft of storage about 1' tall. That's a LOT of space for your stuff as long as its under 1' tall. Think of floor area that is about 13' x 13'. But its yours so you can adjust the height as you see fit for each shelf. A shelf 2.5' deep is very manageable. Most people stuff their bed against the wall so if they have under bed storage the bins need to be very long and that's awkward. Much better is accessibility from each side. 

Couples argue and arguing is noisy. And couples expect to pay only slightly more for 2 people to a room compared to one. They just will never pay much more because usually they never have to. Just the way our society works. 



> More than one person per bedroom not romantically involved is, I think, bonkers.


I know it seems odd. No question to most Canadians. But other cultures are quite comfortable with it. And they're doing it all over the world, including cities in Canada. If you know Indian or Pakistani people ask them and you'll see. Its very common in their culture. They're not doing it for a lifetime. Just til they get on their feet. For most probably a year or 2 at most. Then they get into a house. Canadians can take 20 years of working/saving before they get into a house. Who's smarter? Think of the waste of money paid in rent for those 18-19 years! And when most immigrants get a house they get one within their means so its paid off much faster, especially with ambitious mortgage helpers, whereas a Canadian sometimes spends as much for interest as the price they paid for the house. 



> Maybe a single parent and a child, though I'm not sure that's even legal.


Yeah, zoning gets more rigorous when children are involved. But what would be terrible about that is the noise. Kids are noisy and parents are noisy around kids. I would never have kids in a situation like this in a million years. The quietest ages, say about 8-10 would be the best if one was to try. Best to probably just stay away from people with children.



> Most extreme I have seen is something like a crash pad for airline workers who just need somewhere to sleep in another city. But it is not their primary residence.


Ha! You bring up another good point: I wonder if this would work as a temporary residence, say for 5 days a week then they go back to the country where the family stays on cheap property? They don't commute far for 4 days a week and the wife doesn't worry about them fooling around because she probably knows the people there. Another possibility!


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

cm2u said:


> No. I've said that I didn't post this specifically for myself. I'm interested in the subject, yes, but this was posted for a couple of people interested in getting into real estate but they live in areas where it can be difficult to meet mortgage payments with the rental income unless the landlord is very resourceful. And I've said I don't know if it would be legal in most cities. And I've repeatedly stressed the necessity of being fire safe.


In my city, it is legal but there is a much higher standard of care required to keep it legal than just being a landlord There was a hefty charge and fine for a couple of landlords a few years ago that ran rooming houses. One had a fire, though they met the space legislation, people had dies and the landlord was fined almost $100k, with the possibility of criminal charges. There's been a few case as such. 

*Depends how its installed. If its bolted to a steel bracket and that steel bracket is bolted to the wall its very secure. For that type of install its legal in my city. It may not be in other areas. But common sense would dictate the landlord would be wise to minimize cooking equipment as much as possible. I think the problem is usually grease catching fire from people frying. If we could just ban frying pans the place would be so fire safe!*

In my city, you cannot have anything that is intended for cooking or food prep without an immediate washing area (regulations for that). That includes hot plates, griddles, toaster ovens, waffle irons, panini presses, or item that can be converted as such which included a clothes iron, hair irons above a certain temp, etc 😂 They had pretty strict guidelines i guess because people can be pretty creative. 

*In my poorer city the average seems to be around 100-120 sq ft. 

How are you doing this? How many people are you allocating to each room? And doesn't the city care if there are a lot of people packed into a room? Or are they just looking at sq footage, in this case being 1500? So that's just for the bedrooms? You say each person needs 150 sq feet. Where are these 10 people being housed? I would be very surprised if this was legal in most cities. It seems very congested as a 2000 sq ft house is probably a 3 or 4 bedroom layout. I thought 2 to a room might be doable in most areas, 3 to a room in a few. Any more than that I thought you'd have to be out of town where nobody checks or even cares. Like farmland. *

I said that i took a rough number. In almost all cases I looked up, you can have multiple people IF room meets a certain square foot for the sleeping area AND the total minimum square footage per person of livable space is met. I was just doing simple math based on your wild assumption of being creative that you would some how other rooms in to legal bedrooms. My numbers where the max if you were able to meet all the other criteria. If someone is out of town, they are still considered in the numbers. Whether someone checks or cares is irrelevent if you are following the laws which was the criteria. 

*That seems kind of high but in high priced areas I suppose not.
In the ads I've seen in expensive areas they're getting about $300-450 with several people to a room. Probably 3 or 4. *

I have looked into this. You stated in areas that are expensive to buy in, so the rents are high. I find you are switching different parameters that don't match which makes this impossible to come up with something logical if you move around your facts. You can get several people to a room unless they meet the bedroom size minimum. 

*But there are advantages to apartment buildings/condos: Coming and going is noticed less because nobody hangs out in the hallways. I was living next to several people (I heard later it was 8!) in a 1 br apartment for about 2 years and had no clue. I rarely heard anything from that side and they never made any noise to speak of. I never in 2 years saw them enter or leave the apartment. That's the apartment building advantage. When people see others come and go at the front door they don't know what floor they're going to let alone which unit unless they happen to live nearby. In a house you have to leave by a door and most doors are visible by neighbors. Unless you're smart and cagey and put hedges/trees around blocking the view! People are much less obtrusive if they come and go from the back door usually.*

If it's a well run condo, they won't allow it. Most condo even have their own by laws for occupancy and it's lower than the municipal ones. They also have more restrictions and more people sharing walls which will lead to complaints. In a house, you neighbors may get mad, but again, if you are following the law, there is no problem. You bring up cagey things, but still say you are following the law. Which one is it?

*Good point. Definitely finding a cooperative owner can be challenging. In my city I know someone who listened to my suggestions and within 3 months had secured 2 houses. I would never advise someone starting out to go with 2 as you can't be in 2 places at the same time but one of them he advertised for immigrant female students and they gave him no headaches so he hardly ever had to be there. Lucky break I guess. The other one was in a rougher area of the city and though the profit potential was far higher there, the headaches also were far higher there. Obviously its best to start with just one location until its really running smoothly. Now I should mention he was just re-renting the house to make a little and live free originally. But then he got the 2nd one which was probably a mistake. 
Oh it definitely happens but I'm presuming that the owner is one who is sick of managing the place and is letting someone take care of things because they have developed good trust in them. Or....the owner is going to vigilantly check up on the place as its filling up to make sure there is no damage. But you're right: Finding someone that is OK with this scenario is the hardest part of making it work and it would be far easier if you owned the place. *

I think the owner probably doesn't care as they are slum lord and just wants the money. Ironcially, one of the cases in which the owner was charged, he tried to deny that he knew anything about it. Still got charged. 

*Makes sense from an insurance standpoint. About how much more was it if there were say double the people there compared to before?*

I have not idea, i think the risks go up exponentially and therefore the insurance will reflect it. When we had a single roommate to share our 2 bedroom, there was no increase, same with when we have a friend share the basement suite (they weren't cooking) When we added cooking facilities there, I think it went up about 25%, that was the same when we had a friend, then their boyfriend, and another time a family. When my tenants took over our place and started rented and add 2 families without our knowledge, in the same basement, it was getting to a different type of insurance. We kicked out the squatters. 

*young people just moving out: Students - the ones that are serious about their education (the ones that you want) will want a place that is quiet so they can study, they won't want to share their room.

You're thinking of typical Canadians. But that's not the demographic these landlords are seeking. None are looking for born in Canada Canadians. At least I haven't found any yet. No, they are seeking work til you drop, new immigrant students, bent on making a success of their new life here. People that go to school full time and work full time sleeping 4-5 hours a night, 7 days a week for months without a day off because they also work weekends. Canadians cannot fathom making sacrifices like that. (I sure wouldn't!) People like this, first of all, are hardly ever home. They'll use the library to study probably as its roomier and they have research materials right there. And its at school close to other things as well. School/work/sleep. That's their life til they have their degree. Then they may work 2 jobs out of university to buy a house to look more appealing to their prospective, procreating wife! How they meet anyone to start a family boggles the mind. But they do. 
Or working and going to school. Or working multiple jobs. Once again you're referencing 40 hour a week Canadians. These people don't slouch around like that. Some work 2 full time jobs during the week and something else on the weekends. My head would explode if I had to do that. 

These people don't even mentally grasp such a concept as partying.*


Most foreign students are on a special student visa that limits the amount of work they are allowed. Many of them have to show assets of how they are going to support them selves while in studies. Most are very limited to the amount of work even part time work they are allowed. You may get some but these student are more like school, study, sleep and would want somewhere quiet that is there own. We have family and friends that have boarded foreign students or were one themselves. Most of them cant work for pay as students. They do work hard, but they also want their space. They also seem to game alot. 


*Now you've hit on a very important and challenging aspect of multiple people per room. Noise. Not everyone likes earplugs and even earplugs only lower the volume. They don't block noise at all. And they cause problems like wax buildup if used every night and probably are linked to Tinnitus with long term use. Earplugs are not a solution.

What would be a solution is a soundproof sleeping chamber for each person. There's nothing commercial out there at a reasonable cost so you'd have to use recording room soundproofing techniques to make them. Basically a box within a box with a clever entrance way and ventilation from outside bringing in fresh air through sound absorbing ducting. Not easy but not impossible. Lots of info is available for soundproofing ductwork since inline fans need to be suppressed in most buildings. Pot growers also employ these techniques to hide their growup from people close by. But then people could sleep undisturbed at any time of the day, no matter if people were talking right beside the bed. They need to be rigged up with an alarm of some sort though to wake people in the event of an emergency. Not difficult. You could stack these probably at least 3 high, perhaps 4. And as they are soundproof you could dedicate one room just for sleeping for everyone if you could rig up the ventilation. And the ventilation would have to work if the power went off so a UPS (Uninterrupted Power Supply used for computers) would need to be used. And 2 fans for each in case one malfunctioned. Air would be exhausted outside as well of course or maybe it could just seep out through the cracks in the room. As long as fresh air is being pushed into each compartment it wouldn't really matter. This would also be excellent for shift workers or graveyard workers. Having one room just for sleeping (that could also be soundproofed a little) is a really interesting concept. Another room could be a work area. Just long tables with ethernet connections (as well as WiFi) and AC connections. You could supply large monitors for people to plug in their tiny laptops so they don't have to squint at their little screens. You can buy 24" monitors for about $50 used now! They even have phones out (high end only for now) that you can plug in your USB keyboard/mouse and big monitor. I think Samsung was the first last year. This is totally the future. Imagine going to a coffee shop or restaurant alone and just plugging in your phone/life and be immersed in a big screen. Most people would be fine with using their own earbuds I think. And with virus concerns nobody would be comfortable sharing headphones anyway. *

I dunno even know what so say about this. I will leave it to you. There are so many things wrong with this whole set up. Building codes as define what wall is, so that might become a problem for the chambers. You cannot stack people up in the room without proper clearance and access. You are now renovating the house into a bunk house which I take my kids to camp for, and even what you are saying is worst than that. Now you are talking about how the people should live and function. I just have to say, this one above part, I could write paper on all the things wrongs. 

*She sounds Filipino and Filipinos tend to have a high degree of trust for others coming from that culture. I'm guessing the new people weren't Filipinos and didn't have the same degree of honesty or allegiance to the people there. I did mention the need for some sort of secure storage for everyone. Something like a heavy duty locker. You could use video surveillance but few people would be comfortable with that and it would be illegal without everyone's consent. When people steal the food of others its a real pain though. So petty and irritating. Maybe you'd have to employ small fridges that are shared amongst 2 people, with a lock. If something is stolen at least you know who it was!*

The new people were also the same culture, people sometimes dont get along even if they are the same culture. People are people 




*Like I said, you start conventionally and try unconventional things and if they don't work discontinue them. For most situations though, in reasonably priced cities, just renting out the living room can often pay for the rent along with the bedrooms. Just adding 1 room (especially as a living room is quite a bit larger so it would rent for more) can make a huge difference to the bottom line. *

_*The point is to live free AND have control over the house, especially the outdoor area which could be all yours really. If you like doing things around the house outside this could be a huge factor. 

Start with re-renting and if you can make it work legally and it doesn't fry your mind, THEN buy a house. *_
*And if you're buying a house, it might be best to look at one that needs a lot of work and priced appropriately but that has a cooperative layout (with rentable rooms that have windows or could have windows) so you don't have to use a room to get somewhere else. Like many living rooms are used to get to another room. Can't have that. If one was doing a lot of renovating you could do so many things to raise the rental revenue and make it better. The simple truth is a lot of homes now (especially open concept styles) wouldn't work at all for this because you need to segregate spaces and parents want to keep an eye/ear on their children at all times. So its the opposite of what we would want: Total soundproofing between each bedroom. If you were renovating you could make it the way you want, for maximum revenue. You just have to have a good idea of what everything will cost! Best to be a very pessimistic buyer.*

Nothing wrong with sharing costs. But what you have even suggested is well beyond that. You asked the question what do people do in expensive areas. Here's the thing, it is not a right for someone to buy a house in an expensive area if they can not afford. it.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

cm2u said:


> ... Depends how its installed. If its bolted to a steel bracket and that steel bracket is bolted to the wall its very secure.


I thought that stove with an oven would be secure but one renter managed to start a fire. 




cm2u said:


> ... You're thinking of typical Canadians. But that's not the demographic these landlords are seeking. None are looking for born in Canada Canadians. At least I haven't found any yet.


I doubt they care as long as what they want is met and they are paid on time.




cm2u said:


> ... Canadians cannot fathom making sacrifices like that. (I sure wouldn't!) People like this, first of all, are hardly ever home.


I know several so YMMV.




cm2u said:


> ... Or working and going to school. Or working multiple jobs. Once again you're referencing 40 hour a week Canadians. These people don't slouch around like that. Some work 2 full time jobs during the week and something else on the weekends. My head would explode if I had to do that.


OOH ... it was one job. OTOH ... a Canadian I know was working seventy hour weeks for almost three years.




cm2u said:


> ... Start with re-renting and if you can make it work legally and it doesn't fry your mind, THEN buy a house.


The only owner I know that would have gone for the re-rent was trying to get me to be his junior partner. The others were already taking care of renting out. Times change and others have differnt luck so it may work out.


Cheers


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

cm2u, I would think by now you would realize that there's not a whole lot of support here on CMF for your idea. Plugging Along has shown extreme patience in setting out some of the "cons", at length. There are not many offsetting "pros".

As PA, and some of the rest of us have pointed out, the ideas you advance are beset by obstacles related to zoning regulations, health and safety regulations, insurance issues and more. However, if you (or whoever you have in mind) can find a place where you can legally implement the ideas you have put forth here, then go ahead. You did say at the outset that it all has to be legal, and some of us have difficulty in seeing how much of what you propose could be legal anywhere, except perhaps out in the sticks. But, you said at the start that you idea was intended to be implemented in "expensive areas".



Plugging Along said:


> ...
> Nothing wrong with sharing costs. But what you have even suggested is well beyond that. You asked the question what do people do in expensive areas. Here's the thing, it is not a right for someone to buy a house in an expensive area if they can afford it.


I think perhaps PA intended to say that it is not a right for someone to buy in an expensive area if they _cannot_ afford it. I trust PA will correct me if I am mistaken. But it would seem to go almost without saying that, if your cannot afford a place, then don't buy it.

The first house I ever bought was a triplex in the Kitsilano area of Vancouver. My wife at the time and I were students. We had no money. We could not get (never even tried to ask) bank financing. We got the vendor to finance the house (at 11% interest...the going rate at the time). We lived on one floor and rented the other two. Actually, the basement was not much. That area was zoned for duplexes, and most (like ours) contained illegal basement suites. We initially rented the basement to two, unrelated, people. One was there when we bought and he stayed for a year or two. He was Greek and spoke no English. He would simply appear at our door once a month and pay his rent of $90 in cash. On Sundays, he would be in his room in the morning a play Greek music at a fair volume and smoke. The smoke would enter our floor, but we coped. The other room we rented to a UBC law student for a couple of years. When both moved out, we rented to a married couple. 

We did not particularly enjoy life there, but it served its purpose. We wanted to be in a single-family house. We bided our time. We also wanted to be where lots were larger. Kits lots like ours were typically 33' x 110'. Each housed, effectively, 3 dwelling units. So the local population density was fairly high. Each house typically had live-in owners and 2 suites rented and each house could require parking for as many as 6 cars. Most of that parking had to be on the street. The street was always lined on both sides with cars and parking was quite competitive. It was somewhat noisy; lots of coming and going.

In time, we sold at a profit and bought a sf house in MacKenzie Heights. Houses there now go for about $3 million, if land value only, and up to about twice that for a newer house. By just about any yardstick, an "expensive area". Believe it or not, those houses sell every day. No shortage of folks who can afford them. I dare say, not many of those would be welcoming of the house next door being converted to the use you propose. They would not expect such a thing, not what they moved to an expensive area to find.

This is nothing new. When we lived there, after a few years, the house next to us on the south side changed hands. Before long, the new owners were installing windows in the basement on the side facing us. I suspected a basement suite being created. Before long, our neighbours confirmed that suspicion. They explained it by saying that was the only way they could afford their mortgage. I held my tongue and refrained from asking "Then why the %$# did you buy a single-family house in this area?" 

However, it was not long before I came hope from work one day to find the woman who had moved into the basement suite up in our apple tree, in our side yard close to her suite. She was happily picking our apples. She thought I had not seen her and she froze, to the branches stopped moving. I was nonplussed; not sure how to respond. Not what I expected in staid MacKenzie Heights. So I said nothing and pretended I did not see. But was she undeterred? Nope, a few days later, she returned for more.

That was enough for me. I phoned city hall. Vancouver policy concerning illegal suites at the time was to act on complaints. They sent out an inspector and ordered the unit closed and the kitchen taken out. My neighbour - obviously unaware of the source of his difficulty - actually came to me for legal advice, asking how, or if, he could fight the closure order. I pretended to be wholly sympathetic, while delivering the bad news that "You can't fight City Hall" and he might as well surrender, which he did.

So you might encounter a few curmudgeons like me along the road to your flophouse dream.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

^. thanks MP. I corrected at least the one type. I am sure there are many. I was just playing and having some fun in responding as it’s really awful idea.

the short answer to how do people buy in expensive areas that they can’t afford - they don’t or shouldnt is more correct.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I am more than a little stumped by OP's view that immigrants are completely different from Canadians and won't make messes, smoke, be noisy and do all the things people do in their homes. People are people.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

^ I think what OP is getting at is there are some cultures where sharing Tight living spaces are more common, and people are willing to sacrifice more. There is a difference in terms of space expectations of Canadians vs some other countries in general. That being said, OP is making a lot of generalizations and I believe he thinks they can be exploited more easily. Which sadly can be true.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Sure ... but I haven't seen the immigrants as being all that one size fits all.

Because of how he grew up, my Indian co-worker even when in a rooming house insisted on a room to himself. He and his wife lived in apartments for a long time before buying a house eventually. The parents visiting for months at a time were the only additional people in the house.

Another rented a room where friends/family visiting for the weekend was okay but other than that, it was one person in the room. Moving into a house was the by-product of getting married to a Canadian that already owned one.

Several that have most of the rooms full have only family in the house (i.e. brothers, sisters, parents, with spouses and kids).


Cheers


----------



## sprdave (Oct 1, 2011)

Without reading the whole thread, so it was probably mentioned but I reiterate...

The vast majority of people don't realize, or blissfully ignore, what's involved with a multi-tenant setup. Everything from zoning, whether it's even permitted in your area at all, licensing requirements - then there is all the building code and fire code requirements (especially a problem with basements) such as multiple exits directly to outside, windows for each room - then things like insurance and liability involved, to name a few... It's a real headache that most wouldn't do legally.


----------



## Angry Dwarf (Jun 11, 2021)

You can do this in Toronto legally and safely if its a boarding house, assisted living care home or if you can get both or more people to sign the rental agreement for that unit for a "licensed" rooming house. With the housing shortage the local code enforcement including fire will bend (but not break) the rules to make sure people stay out of shelters, off the street or in undeclared multidwellings. Just be upfront and have basic but esstential things like smoke detectors in each room, fire rated doors on each unit, intercontected alarms in common, storage and service areas. Ample fire extinguishers and emergency lights, carbon monoxide detectors and door closers on all exterior and corridor doors. 

The building and fire will also demand you have an on site super who they can contact regarding any issues. 

LEOs will have much higher trust if you install a good security camera system and give them access to it over the internet. So they wont come down as hard on you when they have to answer noise complaints or a drunken student whos learning his limits

Some organizations will even. Sponsor you, help you run it And arrange city or provincial rent subsidies for tenants rent in the case of assisted care or boarding houses for elederly or low income folks. Habit for humanity is the biggest one. Local and indigenous organizations and government social workers do it for rooming houses.

For a boarding house you need cleaning and cooks

For a assisted care ditto but also an on site nurse

For a rooming house just a super but you should also hire a cleaner as most people dont clean up after themselves

Try to do things as by the book as you can even of you go unlicensed because it will save you alot of headaches in the long run.

Also dont just chase money. Dont cram as many people in a room as you can. Your tenants will resent you and the wear and tear on the property is awful.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It is a business model. But it is not a passive business. It is pure fantasy to think you can carefully handpick problem-free tenants eager to pack themselves four to a room and expect to just collect rent cheques every month and otherwise ignore it. I think an alien might believe that, but anyone who has lived on earth among humans knows otherwise.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

james4beach said:


> I'm actually more disturbed now that it sounds like this isn't just a joke, and you might be serious.
> 
> I think what you're describing is immoral and illegal. You should not do this.
> 
> ...


Wow....some of you have really lived some sheltered lives and haven't traveled much. The living conditions (clean, non-smoking, well ventilated) would be better than probably 1/4 of the rest of the world. So better than what 1.5 billion people experience day to day. Before I mentioned about hot plates bolted to walls. I didn't write that well. I meant you could increase cooking facilities by doing that instead of getting another stove. And it wouldn't be in a bedroom. It would be in the kitchen with the typical kitchen exhaust fan. Look, when the prospective renter came to see the place they'd be told how many people are living there so they'd know that cooking time would be limited. If it was important for them to spend a lot of time in food prep they simply wouldn't move in. Most of these people are working 2 jobs and are so tired at the end of the day they just grab a snack and go to bed. Many, as I mentioned before, work in places that have free food for their employees. 

You've got to understand the demand for a $400 living space in a place like Vancouver is so high people WILL sacrifice to get it. 

Well here's the news: People ARE doing this and doing it peacefully and they are saving some people are lot of rental costs. Because how else are you going to live close to your work in Vancouver or Toronto and not pay more than $700 or so without sharing your sleeping space? Let me know please. Rent is money down the drain. We all know this. But some people are determined to minimize it until they save enough for a down payment for their first house. This way they move into that house a whole lot sooner. 

Its ironic that so many Canadians are resentful of the wealth of so many immigrants, oblivious to the sacrifices they made to get there over the years, simply because they don't talk to them even if they work around them. They could learn so much. An interesting thing about the mind: We adapt to the world. You cushy people, used to your granite countertops and stainless steel appliances and heated underground parking and instant on air conditioning if the temperature dares to advance 2 degrees above our hallowed room temperature, don't realize that if you remove any of those things you'd soon adapt and your mindset would be the same as it is now. Its the ability to experiment with yourself that sets the real leaders apart from the crowd. Because you just never know how something new will work unless you dive in (after taking reasonable precautions of course - like asking experienced people in the field their opinions).


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

andrewf said:


> Ridiculous is a good word for it.


So I noticed that none of you have presented any other options for raising rental revenue besides increasing the number of people living there. Interesting.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Because someone (the OP who opened this obscene thread) has been brainwashed and now trying to brainwash others here in order to validate the legality of what he/she wants to attempt.
> 
> I hope when the OP's friends tells that jumping off a cliff will give you a longlife, he/she will do just that instead of coming over to this forum trying to convince others to follow. EOM.


I have said repeatedly that this can only work if its legal and respects zoning laws.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Angry Dwarf said:


> You can do this in Toronto legally and safely if its a boarding house, assisted living care home or if you can get both or more people to sign the rental agreement for that unit for a "licensed" rooming house. With the housing shortage the local code enforcement including fire will bend (but not break) the rules to make sure people stay out of shelters, off the street or in undeclared multidwellings. Just be upfront and have basic but esstential things like smoke detectors in each room, fire rated doors on each unit, intercontected alarms in common, storage and service areas. Ample fire extinguishers and emergency lights, carbon monoxide detectors and door closers on all exterior and corridor doors.
> 
> The building and fire will also demand you have an on site super who they can contact regarding any issues.
> 
> ...


I keep on repeating myself: This is not a rooming house. Its shared accommodation. The two are vastly different. The latter having a lot more flexibility. Its the only way this can work. 

But all your recommendations for fire prevention are valid and not insurmountable, especially if you're renovating your own place anyways. I've always focused on soundproofing but a lot of soundproofing can also inhibit the spread of fire if chosen well. Though good fireproofing is always getting to the fire extinguisher fast and using it effectively. And the only way that can be done in a smokey environment is to use goggles for the eyes and a respirator for breathing. I've used my half face El Cheapo respirator with a P100 filter in lightly smokey places and detected no smoke but I have no idea how it would perform in heavy smoke. You'd need the right filter. Some people would think that someone renting there wouldn't bother but if they have something irreplaceable or a pet they can't find they would really want to quench that fire. 

"Don't just chase money". True, especially if its a long term investment. But I guess what I'm trying to point out is many of us simply can't get into the game without some very out of the box thinking and doing things few others would contemplate. Hey, if it was straight forward and easy everyone would do it. Also everything I'm saying in this thread is hinged on the owner/manager if renting the house from someone else, living there. This is simply not what most real estate investors do. They buy property because they have money they don't want to put in the stock market or are diversifying. They aren't buying real estate because they like buying and managing real estate. The stark reality is that's a terrible reason to invest. We should be investing in things that interest us. A hands off owner is usually a lousy overseer of the investment simply because the disconnect precludes them to be really in the know about everything there. I'm primarily hoping to inspire young people with no family that have a high degree of adaptability. Even with a family it can work if you segregate yourself, say on a separate floor from everyone else. This cuts down on your revenue of course but by this time you should be doing this well and can afford it. 

Once you've been doing this for a few years you could hopefully set up one of the renters as a super and buy/move into another place and do it again. As your money gets better you'd live on your own but you really need good eyes for this to work. And definitely not geographically distant!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Angry Dwarf said:


> You can do this in Toronto legally and safely if its a boarding house, assisted living care home or if you can get both or more people to sign the rental agreement for that unit for a "licensed" rooming house. With the housing shortage the local code enforcement including fire will bend (but not break) the rules to make sure people stay out of shelters, off the street or in undeclared multidwellings. Just be upfront and have basic but esstential things like smoke detectors in each room, fire rated doors on each unit, intercontected alarms in common, storage and service areas. Ample fire extinguishers and emergency lights, carbon monoxide detectors and door closers on all exterior and corridor doors.
> 
> The building and fire will also demand you have an on site super who they can contact regarding any issues.
> 
> ...


 ... only problem is the "landlords" of these units, particularly "rooming houses" are nothing short of "slumlords".


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cm2u said:


> I have said repeatedly that this can only work if its legal and respects zoning laws.


 ... well, why don't you contact a lawyer in your city and find out if it's "legal" on what you're planning to do "honestly". Your respect for zoning laws is like respecting my toes.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Beaver101 said:


> ... only problem is the "landlords" of these units, particularly "rooming houses" are nothing short of "slumlords".


True. But you know what? If they lived there it would be a lot better kept up because they couldn't stand living there in filth or disarray. Most investors are quite organized and would not like living in a mess. As they say, always be close to your investment.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cm2u said:


> True. But you know what? If they lived there it would be a lot better kept up because they couldn't stand living there in filth or disarray. Most investors are quite organized and would not like living in a mess. As they say, always be close to your investment.


... and you know what? Most landlords (99%) wouldn't want to live in their rentals or even a block away from his/her tenants. It has to be far far far away. All he/she, slumlord is concerned is with the "rent pay-up", everything else (complaints, broken/plugged toilet, have your pick to fix, etc.) can wait. Even the bylaw officers or orders to comply.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Something that parallels this discussion that I've noticed happening in fairly nice established neighborhoods, as a result (I suppose) of the high price of real estate, is the purchase of a home that is then converted to a two unit rental. The basement is renovated, along with the upper floor to accommodate two units. Historically, a family would buy this home, and live there, and take care of it with pride of ownership.

This situation, from observation in my own neighborhood, results in an excess of vehicles and a disregard for the appearance of the home. I only need to drive down any street in my neighborhood and see a bunch of vehicles and a lawn that is overgrown and junk laying around to know what's going on in that house.

Anyone else observe this situation?

ltr


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Yes. And add multiple bicycle parking plus multiple garbage + recycling bins tell you that there're waaay waay waaay more than 2 families dwelling in there.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I see similar things happening where I live. Typically, a South Asian family will buy a 3-bedroom house, renovate the basement, and sometimes the garage as well, to create 2-3 additional bedrooms, so now it's a 5-6 bedroom house with 6-10 people living there. This is a typical 2000 sqft house with not a lot of parking, so usually vehicles spill out onto both sides of the street.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Those are considered rooming houses and subject to the appropriate laws.

It all works until there is a fire or the police are called about something. Then the insurance refuses to pay and law enforcement lay charges.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

Beaver101 said:


> ... and you know what? Most landlords (99%) wouldn't want to live in their rentals or even a block away from his/her tenants. It has to be far far far away. All he/she, slumlord is concerned is with the "rent pay-up", everything else (complaints, broken/plugged toilet, have your pick to fix, etc.) can wait. Even the bylaw officers or orders to comply.


Yeah I know most landlords are very divorced from their properties. Its too bad. They really are in the wrong business. I suppose the hope for profits blurs their judgement when buying.


----------



## Angry Dwarf (Jun 11, 2021)

cm2u said:


> I keep on repeating myself: This is not a rooming house. Its shared accommodation. The two are vastly different. The latter having a lot more flexibility. Its the only way this can work.
> 
> But all your recommendations for fire prevention are valid and not insurmountable, especially if you're renovating your own place anyways. I've always focused on soundproofing but a lot of soundproofing can also inhibit the spread of fire if chosen well. Though good fireproofing is always getting to the fire extinguisher fast and using it effectively. And the only way that can be done in a smokey environment is to use goggles for the eyes and a respirator for breathing. I've used my half face El Cheapo respirator with a P100 filter in lightly smokey places and detected no smoke but I have no idea how it would perform in heavy smoke. You'd need the right filter. Some people would think that someone renting there wouldn't bother but if they have something irreplaceable or a pet they can't find they would really want to quench that fire.
> 
> ...


Honestly youre just talking about creating a rooming house. You cant paint an elephant pink and call it a flamingo. Please look up insurance guidelines. More than 3 unrelated people occupying a unit is considered a rooming house.

Why waste money on complicated and unrequired equipment like respirators. Fire inspectors will laugh that off and tell you to do what I said above then have it inspected by an independent fire systems technician and provide a full report. You should also have a fire safety plan, monthly fsmoke detector teat records in a fire box by the front entrance in case the fire department has to ever deal with a call.

Most tenants will not even use a fire extinguisher much less a respirator, they just leave the property and call 911. A cat or dog wont make most people stay or reenter burning building. We read feel good stories in the news but its not the norm.

Soundproofing does not inhibit fires, It just something else to burn. Even drywall will burn not just by flame but by just heat from a smoldering fire.

Being hands a on owner is a must for theae types of rentals . no decent property management will take them on especially if unlicensed.


----------



## Angry Dwarf (Jun 11, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... only problem is the "landlords" of these units, particularly "rooming houses" are nothing short of "slumlords".


Most in Toronto are decent. The bad ones are the ones we hear about not the ones that are run well. Ontario public housing and apartment buildings run by slumlords can be alot worse.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> More than 3 unrelated people occupying a unit is considered a rooming house.


I've seen many instances of buildings that could do this and hugely increase revenue by just converting their 1 bedrooms to 2 people sharing each one. For most it would increase by 30-50%. Who cares about wear and tear and water usage when you have an increase like that! On the down side management headaches would also hugely increase. Admittedly this would probably be the worst part of this scenario. I would ease into it. As soon as one person moves out the living room is partitioned in a way that it can be easily removed. Each area would absolutely have to have a lock on it. Of course each side would be a separate tenancy. 



> Why waste money on complicated and unrequired equipment like respirators.


Because goggles and respirators allow someone to function in an environment impossible otherwise. And because they're cheap. I think think that if we have a fire extinguisher we should have the means to use it more effectively. I've been in a fire and experienced smoke in my eyes. You're completely blind and can do nothing. And if you only have goggles and your eyes aren't bothered by the smoke you're hugely limited by how long you can hold your breath. Its also very dangerous to hold your breath in a situation like that. What if something falls on you and it takes a while for someone else to rescue you? I'd rather have a respirator on during that time I may be unconscious. Its easy and it works. That's why I'd have them there. 



> Fire inspectors will laugh that off and tell you to do what I said above then have it inspected by an independent fire systems technician and provide a full report. You should also have a fire safety plan, monthly smoke detector teat records in a fire box by the front entrance in case the fire department has to ever deal with a call.


I'm not saying I'd replace any of your excellent suggestions by relying on tenants to jump into fire fighting mode to save my building. I'd do all of those. None are expensive so why not? Keep in mind fire regulations are all about the safety of the people with no thought of the building. They simply don't care at all if your building was demolished as long as everyone got out OK. Its actually safer to fight the fire as soon as possible with a proper fire extinguisher because you may never know if everyone got out. Also most fires start small and can be easily extinguished if caught soon enough. And the people there can fight it more calmly if they have a clear mode of escape. The biggest danger is probably loose, baggy, flammable clothing. This is often worn by women when they're heavier. Of course women are far less likely to be fighting fires for you. Guess they have more common sense. Men are more likely to go to bat for you to save their sports card collection or some other trivial possession. Though women may risk a bit to save photographs they haven't scanned and backed up!



> Most tenants will not even use a fire extinguisher much less a respirator, they just leave the property and call 911. A cat or dog wont make most people stay or reenter burning building. We read feel good stories in the news but its not the norm.


Yeah, I would think that's true the vast majority of the time. But because its cheap, why not? 



> Soundproofing does not inhibit fires, It just something else to burn.


I thought that some types of soundproofing wasn't flammable. Or maybe its just really expensive. 



> Being hands a on owner is a must for theae types of rentals.


Oh for sure. And they'd have to be younger and energetic. And patient.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

like_to_retire said:


> Something that parallels this discussion that I've noticed happening in fairly nice established neighborhoods, as a result (I suppose) of the high price of real estate, is the purchase of a home that is then converted to a two unit rental. The basement is renovated, along with the upper floor to accommodate two units. Historically, a family would buy this home, and live there, and take care of it with pride of ownership.
> 
> This situation, from observation in my own neighborhood, results in an excess of vehicles and a disregard for the appearance of the home. I only need to drive down any street in my neighborhood and see a bunch of vehicles and a lawn that is overgrown and junk laying around to know what's going on in that house.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I've seen this a lot. Its like a rental disease. Its unfortunate but its also caused by management that is not closely involved with the renter. Also if a renter is a pig they need to go. They're expected to keep up appearances and if they don't they go. After a while you write up more and more rules to keep order. You learn by experience and the house gets better and better. Also its important to have an open ear to the neighbors. They don't want problems and you don't want problems. You both can work together in getting rid of problem renters. They can be your external eyes.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cm2u said:


> Yeah, I've seen this a lot. Its like a rental disease. Its unfortunate but its also caused by management that is not closely involved with the renter. Also if a renter is a pig they need to go. * They're expected to keep up appearances and if they don't they go. After a while you write up more and more rules to keep order. You learn by experience and the house gets better and better. *Also its important to have an open ear to the neighbors. They don't want problems and you don't want problems. You both can work together in getting rid of problem renters. They can be your external eyes.


 . .. a slumlord's dream.

Why the hell do your neigbours want "your" problems.

I'm amazed of your expectation that the "neighbours" should be working "together" on "your" problem of renting to pigs. Do your neighbours get a cut on your rent to "work with/for you"?

Your attitude here reminds me of a slumlord (only it's a slum-b1tch) 2 streets down (thank God, not next door to her but not far enough away), harassing her neighbours on both sides of her slumhouse and telling people that they're not allowed to use the sidewalk on her side of the street.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> Why the hell do your neigbours want "your" problems.


They don't. I said they don't. 



> I'm amazed of your expectation that the "neighbours" should be working "together" on "your" problem of renting to pigs. Do your neighbours get a cut on your rent to "work with/for you"?


I'm just saying they can work with you. Renting a house is not illegal so there's nothing they can do from stopping you from doing it. Smart people work within their constraints for the best possible outcome. If they see a problem they want it fixed. I want to know about that problem. They call me and I fix the problem faster than if they didn't call me. 



> Your attitude here reminds me of a slumlord (only it's a slum-b1tch) 2 streets down (thank God, not next door to her but not far enough away), harassing her neighbours on both sides of her slumhouse and telling people that they're not allowed to use the sidewalk on her side of the street.


Well that's insane. Sorry for your proximity to madness.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cm2u said:


> They don't. I said they don't.


 ... you shouldn't even have said "they" meaning your neighbours "don't want any problem" because it's NOT THEIR (your neighbour's problem). It's you, the slumlord's problem. It's the slumlord''s responsibility to ensure its tenants don't become pigs or a nuisance to their neighbours. What part do you not get that your neighbours have rights too.



> I'm just saying they can work with you.


 ... no, they don't have to work "with" you. Why do you insist they "can work" with you? On what? being your external eyes ? (I missed that part.) Watch the place whilst you're sleeping sound-fully whilst your neighbours have to put up withe loud music, garbage and what ever other pig craps. And whilst your only concern is when are the next rent payments. If you think your neighbours are your employee or you buddy, it's only in your dream.



> Renting a house is not illegal so there's nothing they can do from stopping you from doing it.


 ... no, one or 2 room. But with your fantasy to get "ideas" here to get as many tenants rent in as smallest space available and trying to bypass the bylaws, that's ILLEGAL.



> Smart people work within their constraints for the best possible outcome. If they see a problem they want it fixed. I want to know about that problem. They call me and I fix the problem faster than if they didn't call me.


 ... right, slumlords are every so smart. ... always scheming.



> Well that's insane. Sorry for your proximity to madness.


 ... well, alot of slumlords here in Toronto are like that. And you don't have to feel sorry for me. If you have any decency, stop coming up with these scheming rental ideas/sh1t.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

cm2u said:


> Also if a renter is a pig they need to go. They're expected to keep up appearances and if they don't they go.


Good luck evicting people for merely being untidy. Maybe in fantasyland.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

> ... you shouldn't even have said "they" meaning your neighbours "don't want any problem" because it's NOT THEIR (your neighbour's problem). It's you, the slumlord's problem. It's the slumlord''s responsibility to ensure its tenants don't become pigs or a nuisance to their neighbours. What part do you not get that your neighbours have rights too.


You are acting like house rental is always a foolproof, totally quiet, non-disruptive activity in almost all neighborhoods. Its not. Problems arise. If I was the neighbor I'd want to be able to call the owner. Does that sound unreasonable? The main problem with slumlords is they are disconnected from their properties and don't respond to problems. This the opposite reaction to problems. 



> > I'm just saying they can work with you.





> ... no, they don't have to work "with" you.


I said "can". You said "have". I'm simply offering to be in touch. Have you ever managed property before? 



> Watch the place whilst you're sleeping sound-fully whilst your neighbours have to put up withe loud music, garbage and what ever other pig craps.


If tenants did that I'd be notified and I'd get rid of them fast. 



> And whilst your only concern is when are the next rent payments.


I am the opposite of that. I am involved. In most cases I would be living there so none of this would happen in the first place! I guess you've had some awful experiences with some landlords. 



> ... no, one or 2 room. But with your fantasy to get "ideas" here to get as many tenants rent in as smallest space available and trying to bypass the bylaws, that's ILLEGAL.


I have repeatedly stated this has to be legal and abide by all zoning laws to work. I'm not trying to bypass anything. 



> > Well that's insane. Sorry for your proximity to madness.





> ... well, alot of slumlords here in Toronto are like that.


You have my sympathies. I'm not in Toronto or Vancouver. In the rest of the country real estate is less frenzied. Probably a lot easier to make it work when land doesn't cost a fortune per square meter. I can't imagine investing in such a place. Especially not knowing if COVID will drag on and on.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cm2u said:


> You are acting like house rental is always a foolproof, totally quiet, non-disruptive activity in almost all neighborhoods. Its not. Problems arise.


 ... no, you're expecting your all your tenants are going to be quiet, non-disruptive, like well-behaved kindergarteners because pappa slumlord is going to evict them when the neighbours complain about the slumhouse. So I'm expecting the opposite and will act accordingly.



> If I was the neighbor I'd want to be able to call the owner. Does that sound unreasonable?


 ... do you think the owner being a slumlord cares for your calls/complaints when he/she doesn't even care about the bylaws. Does that sound reasonable to you being a neighbour?



> The main problem with slumlords is they are disconnected from their properties and don't respond to problems. This the opposite reaction to problems.


 ... you make it sound like you're going to be loving grandpa landlord ... until the rent payments have problems ... and then there're the upkeeps/fixing on the place, insurance, fire code compliance, roof /basement leaks, pest control, etc.... all these cost money and meanwhile the rent pot is shrinking ... then it's time to be a slumlord.



> If tenants did that I'd be notified and I'd get rid of them fast.


 ... right ... and meanwhile your units sit empty and no money man.



> I am the opposite of that. I am involved. In most cases I would be living there so none of this would happen in the first place! I guess you've had some awful experiences with some landlords.


 .. perhaps, in the first or 2 years ... and the novelty wears off. Oh, time for the slumlord suit.



> I have repeatedly stated this has to be legal and abide by all zoning laws to work. I'm not trying to bypass anything.


 ... then, go seek out a lawyer as previously mentioned and go through the laws with him/her instead of here asking for "ideas". Duh.



> You have my sympathies. I'm not in Toronto or Vancouver. In the rest of the country real estate is less frenzied. Probably a lot easier to make it work when land doesn't cost a fortune per square meter. I can't imagine investing in such a place. Especially not knowing if COVID will drag on and on.


 ... yeah, and you can drop the rent to keep your tenants. Can't have both the cake and icing being a landlord. I have never been a residential landlord but a commercial one. The latter goes by the laws of the lease whereas the former don't.


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

andrewf said:


> Good luck evicting people for merely being untidy. Maybe in fantasyland.


You know what I mean. If they are expected to mow the grass and let it grow and grow, if there's garage strewn about, etc. If they make it an eyesore they would be evicted because they are not living as they said they would live.


Beaver101 said:


> ... no, you're expecting your all your tenants are going to be quiet, non-disruptive, like well-behaved kindergarteners because pappa slumlord is going to evict them when the neighbours complain about the slumhouse. So I'm expecting the opposite and will act accordingly.
> 
> ... do you think the owner being a slumlord cares for your calls/complaints when he/she doesn't even care about the bylaws. Does that sound reasonable to you being a neighbour?
> 
> ...


Yeah I thought as much. Your experience is in a different world and you have a very pessimistic view of residential situations at the lower end of the scale due to inexperience. You keep on saying things that have nothing to do with my situation so I'll leave it at that. I've corrected you over and over and you keep on down the same track. You equate low end residential living with a slumlord berating their tenants whereas I have made myself very clear how I've never done that and would never do that simply because its bad business. I set rules, the tenant agrees to those rules before moving in and if they vary much from those rules and we can't work it out they are out of there. Simple as that. 

I've rebutted your points one by one. You seem to not like people in general. I do. And to manage a situation like this you have to. Most of the time problems can be worked out and no one needs to leave. I worked at this off and on in low end real estate management for a decade. I was living there and that made a huge difference. When I would hear of other landlord's problems I realized so many could have been avoided had they just been closer to their investment. Like right on top of it. Its just like a fire. The sooner you deal with it the less damage there is. 

As for money and profit I was making so many mistakes and still managed more than a 15% cap rate. Not many people do that. Knowing what I know now my profit picture would have been vastly different. The 1 bedrooms would have housed 2 independent people at about 60% more rent. The 2 bedrooms would have housed 3 independent people at about 50% more rent. I would have turned the laundry room into another suite adding 7% more rent (laundry machines would have been in the hallway in the basement. I would never have sold it had I known about chopping up apartments. I could have rented at a little below market ratea for room rentals to ensure the people gave me less headaches as well! Live and learn, right?


----------



## Angry Dwarf (Jun 11, 2021)

Blocking the hallways with laundry machines is a fire hazard and youll get quickly fined in the thousands of dollars. Chopping up rooms would have the building dept quickly coming after you


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

cm2u, are you suggesting that you operate this business model already? I thought you were engaging in idle speculation about how wonderful it would be to stack tenant like cordwood. Given the way you seem to expect humans to behave, it is rather incredible (and in, unbelievable) that you are actually running this with real, live people.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ He's not suggesting this as he is indeed practicing this model. And yet he's such a bloody genius being a slumlord that he "needs to come on this forum " to seek "ideas"...aka validations. Or the need to shoot sh1t trying to re"butt" ... too bad there's no finger emoji here but sending one over since the guy has such imaginations.

And this part


> _I've rebutted your points one by one. You seem to not like people in general. I do._


 .. makes me laugh. Right, why don't he up that part and say "slumlords, not only like people but *love* their tenants" so much that the rent include free kisses from grandpa/pappa/uncle landlord too, aside from rent-rebates. The "perfect slumlord business model".


----------



## cm2u (Feb 6, 2019)

andrewf said:


> cm2u, are you suggesting that you operate this business model already? I thought you were engaging in idle speculation about how wonderful it would be to stack tenant like cordwood. Given the way you seem to expect humans to behave, it is rather incredible (and in, unbelievable) that you are actually running this with real, live people.


I am not engaged in this at the present time.
As you and many others seem to have a very short memory I must remind you that many people ARE ALREADY DOING THIS in areas with very high land prices like Toronto and Vancouver. So I was curious if anyone here had tried it. Unfortunately I wasted time and energy responding to people here that CANNOT READ and kept on ignoring what I said and kept on repeating their mantra that anyone that tries to house more than one person in a room is automatically a slumlord even though my responses would indicate that this model requires a very involved, attentive, resourceful, on site owner. What I found interesting though is even though you tried to shoot down my ideas not a single person here could suggest any innovative or new ways of dealing with sky high land prices. It was simply the wrong forum for this question. The people here are mostly involved in upper scale investment with less hands on involvement. I don't have the money to get involved in that yet so I have to focus on the lower end, an area I can afford. I'm also wanting to learn about this field of real estate to help young people starting out so they can get into real estate ownership much, much sooner instead of mid 30's and later like most.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cm2u said:


> I am not engaged in this at the present time.


 ... and yet in your post #127 said:



> _*I worked at this off and on in low end real estate management for a decade.* I was living there and that made a huge difference_.


. So is that not a lie or what?



> As you and many others seem to have a very short memory I must remind you that many people ARE ALREADY DOING THIS in areas with very high land prices like Toronto and Vancouver.


 ... and so? How's your memory about the "opinion" to you go ask a lawyer to validate what you want to do "further" such as stacking sardines in a can, is perfectly LEGAL. I'm sure there're RE lawyers out in Alberta who can "advise" you. You won't get any "ideas" though.



> So I was curious if anyone here had tried it.


 ... the answers have been "no" repeatedly despite your need for "rebuttals". Answers have been ... not a good idea, not legal, all in the direction of "no, no, no, no, no, no ...".

Do you need the "no" to be further translated or deciphered for you?



> Unfortunately I wasted time and energy responding to people here that CANNOT READ and kept on ignoring what I said and kept on repeating their mantra that anyone that tries to house more than one person in a room is automatically a slumlord even though my responses would indicate that this model requires a very involved, attentive, resourceful, on site owner.


 ... so why are you still here? Trying to waste everyone else's time for more "ideas"?



> What I found interesting though is even though you tried to shoot down my ideas not a single person here could suggest any innovative or new ways of dealing with sky high land prices. It was simply the wrong forum for this question.


 ... no, nothing wrong with this forum. Just that it ain't the forum that'll accomodate your ideas nor validate your business model. I know for a fact that schemers are the most innovating, always thinking they can always beat everyone else to the game. Popping your dream bubble here. 



> The people here are mostly involved in upper scale investment with less hands on involvement. I don't have the money to get involved in that yet so I have to focus on the lower end, an area I can afford. I'm also wanting to learn about this field of real estate to help young people starting out so they can get into real estate ownership much, much sooner instead of mid 30's and later like most.


 ... yeah, sure. Helping young people out ... to their parting with their money to your bank account in the sleaziest way. Your posts definitely confirmed you never even had home ownership, let alone "manage low real estate" as claimed ... perhaps, from your computer in the basement. Like a SIMs game.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Good luck evicting people for merely being untidy. Maybe in fantasyland.


Just wait until one of these tenants sues this guy. Meanwhile, someone like me (the neighbour) will be ratting him out to the city and fire dept, and I'll probably get in touch with his insurer as well.



andrewf said:


> cm2u, are you suggesting that you operate this business model already? I thought you were engaging in idle speculation about how wonderful it would be to stack tenant like cordwood. Given the way you seem to expect humans to behave, it is rather incredible (and in, unbelievable) that you are actually running this with real, live people.


I suspect trolling, actually.


----------

