Unpopular opinion: Owning a house isn’t everything
We live in a world today that has the working class believe that if they don’t own a house, their life is a failure.
Reading posts on this sub and r/Ontario is very depressing but I don’t feel like it needs to be so depressing.
Nothing is wrong with renting, you are paying for a roof over your head which puts you in the top percentiles of the whole world. We have been extremely privileged living in the west and it may just be a change of mindset to get out of this mental negative spiral many seem to gotten themselves into.
Posted Nov 14, 2021, 11:06 PM UTC · edited · locked
1K162
That may be an attitude that the latest generation(s) to some degree are evolving toward having (Zoomers, etc.), but it is a generation gap; I'm a Millennial (an 'early model' one), and myself and Gen X mostly conceive of renting as a temporary pit-stop en route to owning a home - I do own, but only because of an inheritance (a sad reality for many).
Renting has too many downsides for people with hobbies and interests that diverge beyond wanting to hit the latest cool cafe or micro-brewery on the weekends; interested in cars, boats, motorcycles? Better have a garage, and one you can make oily and greasy. Want a dog larger than ten pounds (or a dog at all)? Better own the place, as most landlords won't allow them - often not even cats, and especially in high-demand markets where landlords have no incentive to be flexible with potential renters lined up around the block. Want to get into wood-work, gardening, or any other construction-oriented hobby? Your landlord probably won't be OK with that (unless it's maintenance-oriented). Enjoy a bit of grass on the weekend to wind down? Can't do that inside somewhere you rent. No matter how small or large the personal freedom, renting often will infringe on it.
With the continued appreciation of property values, there is then the beat-to-death reality that short of an apocalyptic crash, owning a home will reap an owner far more financial net worth than practically anything else that they can do, short of being someone very talented and astute with investing - renters cannot keep up with the average owner's net worth, which can be leveraged for everything from investing to necessary purchases.
I don't believe that renting means someone has failed - I think it's more a sign that society has failed people when someone with a decent job and who is reasonably financially responsible cannot own something without the Bank of Dad and Mom helping or someone dropping dead and leaving them money. I do believe however that unless you need the flexibility of being able to 'get up and leave' at a moment's notice, renting is objectively worse than owning in almost every way - I rented for ten years of my adult life, so I'm certainly speaking from experience.
I have 4 friends currently renting townhomes and it's become a trend for large investment firms to buy up these rental properties, evict everybody and turn them into condos. They fear losing their home within the next two years.
I have friends in apartment buildings with cockroaches and don't get to control the temperature of the place they call home. Don't have parking spaces. Can't have packages delivered without theft and fraud at the door. Gone months without heat or insulation while landlords ignore maintenance requests.
The privileges, freedom and control over your own living environment is such a large piece of quality of life. Not a single renter I know would chose to do it, it's not a choice, it's a necessity.
Even being responsible for your own appliances atleast gives you the opportunity to have things fixed in a timely manner.
That’s well put and well-argued. I’m wondering, though, if the failure isn’t just the affordability of ownership, but the framework of legal protections and freedoms around renting. To me, that seems significant. If owning property has become impossible for many, then it seems part of the problem isn’t simply to attempt to make ownership affordable again (this may be impossible given the entrenched power of homeowners), but instead to make renting a more viable and liberating option for the young, families, the elderly etc.
You hit the nail on the head. Owning shouldn't be everything. Lifelong renting should be a financial choice that doesn't come with a 10 ft long list of lifestyle compromises.
The fact that we as society treat renters as an underclass is a big part of what drives demand to own.
Totally agree. The only reason we bought in the first place was because we had two big dogs and our choice was basically live in a run down house (most likely basement) or buy. No one would rent to us in a hot market with two big dogs (and when I say big I mean lab size). Worked out well in the end!
Also I don’t think renting vs owning in terms of wealth building is entirely accurate. Maybe true in current market but i think folks often underestimate the cost of maintenance in ownership. For a number of years some markets have not kept up with what you could get from an investment.
I feel like those that can afford to buy a home will generally buy a home. Therefore the ability to do so implies they’re already ahead of their peers at the point of purchase. You’ve also got a sunk cost of building up the initial deposit which many people won’t put into an investment and the number of years it takes to collect is lost gains from the market.
I didn’t think landlords were allowed to limit tenants from owning dogs?
In most places they can, yes; rental buildings can and also will restrict dogs. Let us also be real - you're a landlord and you can rent your place to a single guy, or a single guy with a St. Bernard - who are you picking? Side-note, St. Bernards are actually brilliant dogs for apartments since they basically sleep all day and are quiet, but you see what I'm getting at.
In most places they can deny up-front but not evict if you lie. At least in Ontario.
Denying up front is problematic enough - anyone who needs to move suddenly needs to abandon a dog? Yeah, that ain't cool. Apartment buildings can and do frequently restrict what you can do inside of a rental unit as well - welcome to stratas.
In many/most places, landlords can set the parameters for rental, as long as they are (legally speaking) non-discriminatory in nature.
That's illegal tho?? They can have you sign any bullshit they want but they cannot legally evict someone because they get an animal. Just because they have made you sign a document doesn't mean much, they can't override your rights.
A tenancy agreement in most places is a legally binding document - so yes, if you sign an agreement that says 'no pets' or 'no smoking', and they find out that you broke those agreements, they have legal grounds for eviction, penalty payments, or other redress.
Strata councils in apartments use these provisions all the time to set the parameters that they want for their buildings - i.e. no smoking even on decks, no BBQs, no dogs over 20lbs, etc.
Yea but that’s kind of my point. You’re under no obligation to declare you have a pet and there’s no legal recourse for them if you don’t.
Yes, you are.
Again - in many places, the conditions for tenancy are a tenancy agreement, which is a legally enforceable document - take the Residential Tenancy Branch in B.C, which can and does legally enforce these things. If a landlord draws up a rental agreement saying 'no dogs', then you can't have one, and if found to have one, you are in breach of contract.
Stratas will also set laws and provisos like this.
They can't, but they can ask you and reject you as a tenant. Unless you lie to them and then move in with a dog.
Ya idk what this dude is on, no landlord can stop you from smoking weed or owning animals in the house lmao
Uh... yes. Yes they can.
Rental agreements exist, and landlords can set parameters for rental as long as they are non-discriminatory, and yes, in most places either a landlord or the apartment building can and absolutely will restrict things like smoking and pet ownership.
Nope pet ownership at least in Ontario (where my experience is) is a falsehood. I went to the board with this same problem and won dominantly. As for smoking you are correct, but with weed as long as you aren't caught in the act (and not puffing joints 24/7) no landlord will be able to tell imo.
Yes they can. Entire buildings can even restrict you from smoking on your balcony.
You cannot restrict animal ownership unless property is disrespected because of it. Smoking you can have contracts on but its almost impossible to enforce with marijuana (cigarettes reck places though)
What??? Of course they can? When you sign your lease there will be rules established, very few apartments allow large dog breeds.
Went to the board about this issue. They can't unless it's detrimental to property or the animals/neighbour's life. Smoking can be restricted but good luck proving it with weed and still abiding the 24 hour notice law.