Montreal City Weblog

Kate 10:56 on 2024-03-03 Permalink Reply  

• bob 02:37 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  She (or her flacks) writes as if the mayor has anything to do with it.

  “En achetant des terrains pour les revendre à un prix avantageux” – is that not the definition of land flipping? What a sad joke.

• Ian 11:01 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  There should be some rule that you can’t run in a municipal election if you are a landlord or work in a field that derives profit from real estate; even if there is no conflict of interest, it displays a rent-seeking mentality that does not coexist with such niceties as affordability. Just look at the relationship between property tax increases and gentrification.

  At the very least there shold be a clear document stating which of our elected officials are double-dipping in this way. I’m not saying Plante is as bad as, say, Applebaum, but she is a landlord, as are many other municipal politicians … it all just seems awfully convenient.

• DeWolf 11:39 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  So you’d ban anyone who owns a plex from running for office?

  Montreal’s built form means that most people who own a duplex or a triplex are landlords, unless that plex was subdivided into condos. But there’s a big difference between an owner-occupier and an absentee landlord who owns places as an investment.

• Ian 12:03 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  Yes.

  I have lived in very few places where the landlord also lived in the building. That said, even an owner-occupier benefits from gentrification in a way that simple occupants don’t in that gentrification increases rents well past property tax increases.

  There’s a reason a 4 and a half is >2k/m in Mile End now on average, where it was 1600 even a few years ago.

  That’s not even getting into renovictions, which even Plante has been accused of.

• SMD 13:44 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  @bob: I agree that the statement “En achetant des terrains pour les revendre à un prix avantageux” is ambiguous, but the context around it (and how it is done in practice) makes clear that she means reselling at or below cost to non-profit entities. So “advantageous” in this case is for the non-profits and for society.

• DeWolf 13:56 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  You realize that every Canadian has an inalienable right to run for office, right? It’s one of the fundamental rights that isn’t subject to the notwithstanding clause, which is why the only part of Bill 21 that was struck down by the courts was the one that prevented elected officials from wearing religious symbols. If you want to deprive citizens of their right to run for office, you’d need to change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And then we’d be going back to the days when democratic rights were reserved for certain groups of people based on the values of the time.

  Also, you’ll need to provide a source for Plante being accused of renovictions. Are you sure you aren’t thinking of this story where some guy on social media tried to make a fuss about Plante and her husband doing their own bathroom repairs for their tenant?

  https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2022/02/08/les-travaux-de-renovations-chez-valerie-plante-denonces-par-un-avocat-1

• MarcG 14:40 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  I overheard it suggested once that MPs should be paid the same amount as the poorest person in their riding.

• Ian 16:51 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  @deWolf it’s not an inalienable right to conduct business while in office if your role as an elected official directly affects your business. Applebaum was a particularly egregious example but on a provincial level Duranceau is in cahoots with her (nudge nudge wink wink) “former” business partner. I don’t trust any landlord to fight for tenant rights, affordability, or against gentrification.

  As far as Plante’s renoviction accusation, I was referring to another thing but basically afaik she had jacked the rent after one tenant left and she dud renos in-between to justify. Maybe not illegal, but suspicious and unbecoming of a declared advocate for affordability.

  If you want a fox in the henhouse, thats your call, I guess.

  When I see rents doubling every 10 years in the midst of a housing crisis, no, I don’t think landlords have any vested interest in changing that.

  Cui bono? Not tenants, that’s for sure.

• DeWolf 18:28 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  Yes, it’s a conflict of interest to run a real estate investment business while serving as a city councillor, and it would be reasonable to expect someone to divest themselves of that business if they’re going to serve in office.

  But you’re being sophistic when you argue that a landlord who owns a triplex and rents out the apartments on top of their own residence is basically the same as Peter Sergakis. Given that it costs less to buy a triplex in Rosemont than it does to buy a single-family house in Pointe-Claire, I don’t think you can depict owner-occupants as moustache-twirling villains. They’re not the ones causing the housing crisis when there are slumlords with hundreds of units and corporate landlords like Akelius and Cogir that own thousands upon thousands of units.

  The entire housing system is broken, yes. But this ALAB posturing is pure dogma.

• Ian 18:56 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  It costs less to buy a floor of a triplex in “Lower” Outremont than it does do buy a floor of a triplex in Mile End – I’m not sure what your point is here – thaat somehow landlords are victims of social equity?

  Given that a single floor of a triplex on Jeanne-Mance now runs about 500k, who are these “small time owner-occupants” you are describing? Plante, for example? Anyone that can afford a triplex in the Plateau isn’t exactly worrid about the housing crisis, lol. FWiw Sterlin is a landlord too, if I recall correctly. I know one Projet stalwart sold a property on Jeanne Mance between Laurier and Fairmount for almost 2 million.

• DeWolf 19:26 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  Ian, you can buy an *entire triplex* in Rosemont for less than a million. Montreal is more than just the Plateau.

  $759k: https://www.centris.ca/fr/triplex~a-vendre~montreal-rosemont-la-petite-patrie/26740711
  $715k: https://www.centris.ca/fr/triplex~a-vendre~montreal-rosemont-la-petite-patrie/16784693?view=Summary

  My point is that being a landlord in Montreal does not mean you are a nefarious property investor or speculator, it can also mean you are simply an ordinary person whose home came with a few extra apartments.

• Ian 20:05 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  Sure, there are all kinds of levels of being a landlord. Applebaum was not Broccolini but still he got booted out of office for fraud, conspiracy, breach of trust, and corruption in municipal affairs – becasue that’s what he was doing. It’s not the size of the portfolio that defines the severity of the offense. We’re talking about potential for corruption here, or at least I am.

  In any case, I mentioned the Plateau specifically because this is where I know for a fact that there are PM landlords that own property. Land is much cheaper Laval than it is in the Plateau, too. what’s your point?

  ALAB is a bit more hardcore Georgist than what I’m saying, that’s you’re exaggerataion for effect – I’m saying that elected officials should not be in a position where their private business interest benefits from their elected position.

  If you want to put words in my mouth and argue in bad faith go ahead, but no, I don’t think Plante can be taken seriously about affordability. PM has made it very clear that they have no real intention to do anything about gentrification, let alone general affordabillity – and that many of them benefit from it is telling.

• DeWolf 21:13 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  It all comes back to the massive chip on your shoulder about PM and your unwillingness to acknowledge the limits of municipal powers in Canada.

  A gentrification tax would put billions of dollars into municipal pockets to build affordable housing. That’s a practical solution to the housing crisis. But can Montreal or Toronto or Vancouver impose it without the approval of their respective provinces? No. As with a million other things that would make housing more affordable, it’s out of the hands of anyone in municipal office.

  Meanwhile, PM is buying property for social housing, and there’s actually quite a lot of social housing being built at the moment, just not nearly enough because there’s a lot of federal funding that isn’t getting passed down due to CAQ obstinance. And the individual practices of individual PM councillors has absolutely no impact on the housing situation. Anyone who bought property in Mile End in the 1990s or 2000s is going to make a windfall if they sell today. That’s not a conspiracy, it’s not a conflict of interest. It’s the reality of a situation that has nothing to do with municipal politics.

  You talk a big game but you’re always vague about details. Although now you’ve proposed an idea about disenfranchising an entire bloc of people, which I suppose is something specific, even if it’s wildly unconstitutional.

• Ian 00:01 on 2024-03-05 Permalink

  Could we at least agree that all municipal politicians openly stating if they own rental property or are involved with real estate would be a good idea?

  I do sincerely believe that if any politician’s actions benefit their business they should be disallowed from running. You call it unconstitutional, I call it essential to prevent corruption.

• DeWolf 18:38 on 2024-03-05 Permalink

  Yes, absolutely. Transparency. Elected officials should be required to declare all of their assets and business interests. And I would support any law that requires them to divest of anything that might pose a conflict of interest, including any investment properties.

  But meddling with the right to stand for election is opening Pandora’s box. Once you find an excuse to disqualify a certain class of people for whatever reason, you make it very easy to start imposing all sorts of restrictions – just like in the 19th century, when you had to be a landowner to vote, or white, or a man, etc.