Rolling Chassis In Apartment | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Rolling Chassis In Apartment

Rockwell

Well-known member
Ok going back and seeing that you NOW state, that there is also a motor in the unit. THAT would have been a pertinent piece of info, to include in your original post, not to mention, that there was also a gas can present. You "CLAIM" that there is no oil or gas in the engine. Has it ever been a running motor, or is it a brand new unit, if it has been run, unless it was completely torn apart, and everything wiped down, then there IS some residual oil in it.
...
The LTB, as would most, view this as a vehicle, albeit in some form of disassembly. The board would no doubt agree, that at any point, you could easily reassemble it, within your unit.
...
The LTB is also, VERY likely to rule against you, deeming having a vehicle, (both required major parts, rolling chassis, and a motor), represents a danger, to the other tenants, and also place the land lord with an unacceptable level of liability, if something were to happen.
I didn't mention the engine because I fail to see how it is relevant. My landlord didn't even see the engine. Her issue was with the chassis. The engine is a hunk of cast iron and aluminum. Do the internals have traces of oil? Probably, but I have gallon jugs of cooking oil in my cupboard. Again, I fail to see how any of that is relevant. I cook only with cast iron. I have several cast iron pots and pans. Should I remove them from my apartment as well due to the combination of iron and oil? Or do these things need to be in the shape of an engine?

IF I reassemble the entire bike, that might be a different story. But I still don't see how it is UNLESS I fill it with oil and fuel, and it becomes a danger, or very likely to be dangerous. I have a stereo system capable of being very loud. Do I need to remove it because I CAN turn it all the way up, interfering with the enjoyment of my neighbors? It is only a problem WHEN and IF it violates a regulation as outlined in The Residential & Tenancies Act.

I fail to see the problem unless any item being stored in my apartment causes damage, is very likely to cause damage, or poses a significant danger to anyone in the rental complex, or interferes with the reasonable enjoyment or rights of the landlord or other tenants. Neither my landlord nor anyone in this thread has shown that having these parts in my apartment do any of these things.

Unfortunately not. It's my opinion and therefore valid. I did mention "to each their own", if you want to store vehicles in the house that really is your business.
We're talking about a legal matter, and legal matters are not informed by your opinion. I am not saying that you are wrong, only that you failed to show how your opinion is valid in terms of laws and regulations as it relates to this issue.

The lease won't say anything about storing parts.
The lease won't say anything about herding bearded yaks in the third bedroom, but I don't think that would be allowed either.

When you rent a residence you are allowed regular/usual usage (I'm sure there is a Latin legal term for that but I don't speak Latin).
Storing vehicles in a residence is not regular or usual.
If there was a garage, and the vehicle was in the garage, this would all be different, not necessarily "ALLOWED" but different.
The law, as I understand it, generally states the tenant cannot use the rental unit or the residential complex in a manner that is inconsistent with use as a residential premises and that has caused or can be expected to cause significant damage. This second part is the key. As previously stated, I have had a professional engineer confirm that any suitable dwelling unit must easily be able to withstand the weight of 300 lbs. indefinitely. Of course, building codes go far beyond this. The engineer is willing to provide his expert opinion. As mention above, yes, these item will most likely remain in place, but structural building code does not require that weights of 300 lbs. be moved from time to time. For example, most kitchen appliances, which are often side-by-side, weigh far more than 300 lbs. collectively. It is not a requirement that these be regularly shifted and moved to prevent structural collapse. Once again, after the removal of the small jerry can of fuel (which I didn't realize had fuel in it), there is no oil, gas or combustibles associated with these motorcycle parts. Therefore, I fail to see how it can be shown that having these parts stored in my apartment "have or can be expected to cause significant damage". This, in my opinion as informed by my understanding of the law, is what must be demonstrated and proven.

Which law is that?
See above.

I'm not saying that I am right, and I am open to having my mind changed. Unfortunately, I have failed to hear any sort of reasonable argument against my position. Like my landlord, I have only heard people react viscerally, making statement such as "vehicles are not meant to be kept in apartments", or "you shouldn't be using your apartment as a garage". To me, these are merely statements - opinions not backed up by any reasonable or rational argument. Like I said, I could be wrong, but, in order to change my mind, I need to be presented with a reasonable argument. If I am correct, this also doesn't necessarily mean that I will win this case if it does go to the Landlord & Tenant Board. These institutions are run by people, and people are often irrational, regardless of their position in society.
 
Last edited:

Rockwell

Well-known member
Here is a form N7. Reason 3 is probably the closest that my landlord might get for a reason to evict me. It must be shown that storage of these parts have caused or can be expected to cause serious damage. I don't think this reasonably can be done.
N7.PNG
 

Iceman

Well-known member
I didn't mention the engine because I fail to see how it is relevant. My landlord didn't even see the engine. Her issue was with the chassis. The engine is a hunk of cast iron and aluminum. Do the internals have traces of oil? Probably, but I have gallon jugs of cooking oil in my cupboard. Again, I fail to see how any of that is relevant. I cook only with cast iron. I have several cast iron pots and pans. Should I remove them from my apartment as well due to the combination of iron and oil? Or do these things need to be in the shape of an engine?

IF I reassemble the entire bike, that might be a different story. But I still don't see how it is UNLESS I fill it with oil and fuel, and it becomes a danger, or very likely to be dangerous. I have a stereo system capable of being very loud. Do I need to remove it because I CAN turn it all the way up, interfering with the enjoyment of my neighbors? It is only a problem WHEN and IF it violates a regulation as outlined in The Residential & Tenancies Act.

I fail to see the problem unless any item being stored in my apartment causes damage, is very likely to cause damage, or poses a significant danger to anyone in the rental complex, or interferes with the reasonable enjoyment or rights of the landlord or other tenants. Neither my landlord nor anyone in this thread has shown that having these parts in my apartment do any of these things.


We're talking about a legal matter, and legal matters are not informed by your opinion. I am not saying that you are wrong, only that you failed to show how your opinion is valid in terms of laws and regulations as it relates to this issue.


The law, as I understand it, generally states the tenant cannot use the rental unit or the residential complex in a manner that is inconsistent with use as a residential premises and that has caused or can be expected to cause significant damage. This second part is the key. As previously stated, I have had a professional engineer confirm that any suitable dwelling unit must easily be able to withstand the weight of 300 lbs. indefinitely. Of course, building codes go far beyond this. The engineer is willing to provide his expert opinion. As mention above, yes, these item will most likely remain in place, but structural building code does not require that weights of 300 lbs. be moved from time to time. For example, most kitchen appliances, which are often side-by-side, weigh far more than 300 lbs. collectively. It is not a requirement that these be regularly shifted and moved to prevent structural collapse. Once again, after the removal of the small jerry can of fuel (which I didn't realize had fuel in it), there is no oil, gas or combustibles associated with these motorcycle parts. Therefore, I fail to see how it can be shown that having these parts stored in my apartment "have or can be expected to cause significant damage". This, in my opinion as informed by my understanding of the law, is what must be demonstrated and proven.


See above.

I'm not saying that I am right, and I am open to having my mind changed. Unfortunately, I have failed to hear any sort of reasonable argument against my position. Like my landlord, I have only heard people react viscerally, making statement such as "vehicles are not meant to be kept in apartments", or "you shouldn't be using your apartment as a garage". To me, these are merely statements - opinions not backed up by any reasonable or rational argument. Like I said, I could be wrong, but, in order to change my mind, I need to be presented with a reasonable argument. If I am correct, this also doesn't necessarily mean that I will win this case if it does go to the Landlord & Tenant Board. These institutions are run by people, and people are often irrational, regardless of their position in society.
There is nothing irrational about people making a simple inference from the evidence at hand. You have a bunch of parts in your apartment, enough to say, build a complete motorcycle. Many people may infer that you intend to work on it and restore it in your apartment.
Is that such a crazy illogical assumption? Any more so than using a residential dwelling as a storage unit for a garage?
Have you seen the inside of a garage where restoration work is performed? I can understand her concerns.
You may think that opinions don't matter, however your case will be decided by the opinions of the tribunal.
Good luck with your fight.

Sent from my SM-A530W using Tapatalk
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
Not wrong.

The space is desinated as a living space, not storage, not parking. The landlord can also argue it to be a safety issue.
I highly doubt his lease says anything of the sort.

Sure he can try.
 

K20EF8

Well-known member
Why can't you buy a house downtown? I don't buy that for a second. When I entered the housing market 35 years ago, I made $10K/year and the cheapest dump in a rough hood was $65K. My wife and I ate Kraft dinner for 3 years to save $10K for a down payment - that was 15% of our income for a little over 3 years. We paid 14% interest on a $60K mortgage which cost $700/mo -- or about 40% of our gross income... it was hard.

That house would be about $650K today. To get into that house a couple would need to save about $32K for a down payment. Using comparable incomes today of $56K/person that would require saving less than 10% of their gross income for 3 years. They would be strapped with a $630K mortgage that cost $2900/mo -- or about 32% of that couple's income.

Please don't whine that it's harder today to own a house today than it was 35 years ago... it's not.
It is FAR harder to own a house today than 35 years ago.
1984 adjusted median toronto household income to 2018: $74K
2018 income $78K
1984 adjusted median toronto house price: $226K
2018 median toronto house price $900K

caveat: including in those prices are condos, there are far more condos sold today than in 1984. In other words if you were to look at detached or semi (what should be considered a "house") the 2018 housing is over $1m.

20% down payment would take FAR longer to save today, especially when you consider that adjusted cost of renting is more expensive now than it has ever been.

20% of 900K vs 20% of 226K when incomes are adjusted to 2018 CPI.

5 year mortgage monthly payment at 1984 rates of 13%, $1993 per month (20% down)
5 year mortgage monthly payment 2018 at 3%, $3559 per month (20% down)

That doesnt even take into consideration that younger people are forced to spend far more on education today.
Its nonsense that owning a house now isnt any harder than it was in 1984.
 
Last edited:

hedo2002

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I didn't mention the engine because I fail to see how it is relevant. My landlord didn't even see the engine. Her issue was with the chassis. The engine is a hunk of cast iron and aluminum. Do the internals have traces of oil? Probably, but I have gallon jugs of cooking oil in my cupboard. Again, I fail to see how any of that is relevant. I cook only with cast iron. I have several cast iron pots and pans. Should I remove them from my apartment as well due to the combination of iron and oil? Or do these things need to be in the shape of an engine?

IF I reassemble the entire bike, that might be a different story. But I still don't see how it is UNLESS I fill it with oil and fuel, and it becomes a danger, or very likely to be dangerous. I have a stereo system capable of being very loud. Do I need to remove it because I CAN turn it all the way up, interfering with the enjoyment of my neighbors? It is only a problem WHEN and IF it violates a regulation as outlined in The Residential & Tenancies Act.

I fail to see the problem unless any item being stored in my apartment causes damage, is very likely to cause damage, or poses a significant danger to anyone in the rental complex, or interferes with the reasonable enjoyment or rights of the landlord or other tenants. Neither my landlord nor anyone in this thread has shown that having these parts in my apartment do any of these things.


We're talking about a legal matter, and legal matters are not informed by your opinion. I am not saying that you are wrong, only that you failed to show how your opinion is valid in terms of laws and regulations as it relates to this issue.


The law, as I understand it, generally states the tenant cannot use the rental unit or the residential complex in a manner that is inconsistent with use as a residential premises and that has caused or can be expected to cause significant damage. This second part is the key. As previously stated, I have had a professional engineer confirm that any suitable dwelling unit must easily be able to withstand the weight of 300 lbs. indefinitely. Of course, building codes go far beyond this. The engineer is willing to provide his expert opinion. As mention above, yes, these item will most likely remain in place, but structural building code does not require that weights of 300 lbs. be moved from time to time. For example, most kitchen appliances, which are often side-by-side, weigh far more than 300 lbs. collectively. It is not a requirement that these be regularly shifted and moved to prevent structural collapse. Once again, after the removal of the small jerry can of fuel (which I didn't realize had fuel in it), there is no oil, gas or combustibles associated with these motorcycle parts. Therefore, I fail to see how it can be shown that having these parts stored in my apartment "have or can be expected to cause significant damage". This, in my opinion as informed by my understanding of the law, is what must be demonstrated and proven.

Unfortunately part 1 AND 2 go together in their wording you can't magically exclude part 1 as it doesn't support your contention. The landlord will be able to EASILY prove that you are using the premises for a purpose which IS inconsistent with it's intended use, (residential, not a garage, which is where one normally parks a vehicle). Doesn't matter what YOU fail to see, it ONLY matters what the LTB is likely to interpret, what the regs "suggest." Much like the HTA, (Highway Traffic Act), and the CCofC, (Criminal Code of Canada), the Residential Tenant Act, is purposely written in vague general terms, leaving MOST of the regs open to interpretation. That interpretation, is VERY likely not to go the way you would think, nor consider. I would put it to you, that "most" reasonable people would find it "unreasonable" for a tenant, to store a vehicle, (weather fully assembled and functional, or in various forms of disassembly), within, a residential unit, in a multi unit complex.

You keep asking which tenancy law is being violated. If I were the landlord, I would state to the LTB, that I am not seeking to have you evicted, solely upon tenancy regs alone but rather that you have contravened portions of the Residential Tenant Act, as well as the FIRE CODE, which would clearly advise that storing an engine within the premises, are contrary to any reasonable expectation of use, and fire safety.

If you don't believe me contact TFS, and ask them if it would be considered a fire hazard, to store a functional engine inside of a residential complex, (Again as stated by someone previously, your house your rules), but given this is a residential complex with more that two rental units, (believe it or not the regs differ between units which house 2 or less rental units, as opposed to those that house more than 2 rental units.

I would also point out, your story, about the 75 year old lady, and the landlords deal, in regards to snow removal, while perhaps interesting, will have NO bearing on a hearing about your refusal to remove the vehicle from your unit. It is a deal that both parties, have seemingly entered into willingly, the old lady has two choices, (as egregious as it may seem to you), continue with the current arrangement, or terminate, the agreement, and deal with the consequences of that decision. The tribunal would rule in a heartbeat that ti has no bearing on the landlord's eviction notice to you.

As for your "silly" contention that you have cast iron pots and cooking oil in your unit, which are NO different than a cast iron engine with oil in it, therefore, they should be viewed equally. The pots and cooking oil are items which are routinely and expected to be found within a residential unit. A motorcycle engine is NOT routinely stored and found within a residential unit. If you insist upon going before the LTB, you better have a MUCH better argument than that. That would be akin to stating that many people have a .22 calibre rifle in their residences, therefore, your landlord should have no objection to you having a functioning and armed Howitzer artillery piece within your residential unit...lol Following your twisted logic, should a landlord have no issue if I wanted to store a fully function CF-18, (with the engine sitting beside it, in my unit, after all it is only iron, and some "other parts"...GMAFB

Lastly, as a former copper, who not only dealt with courts ranging from Traffic courts, to provincial appeals and Superior courts as well as various quasi judicial tribunals, this is not something you want to go before a hearing on. Despite what logic would seemingly dictate, doesn't mean it will prevail.

See above.

I'm not saying that I am right, and I am open to having my mind changed. Unfortunately, I have failed to hear any sort of reasonable argument against my position. Like my landlord, I have only heard people react viscerally, making statement such as "vehicles are not meant to be kept in apartments", or "you shouldn't be using your apartment as a garage". To me, these are merely statements - opinions not backed up by any reasonable or rational argument. Like I said, I could be wrong, but, in order to change my mind, I need to be presented with a reasonable argument. If I am correct, this also doesn't necessarily mean that I will win this case if it does go to the Landlord & Tenant Board. These institutions are run by people, and people are often irrational, regardless of their position in society.

Here is the MOST reasonable and logical "opinion" (which obviously you have never before appeared before a tribunal, otherwise you would understand the ruling of said tribunal is based upon the OPINION of the members on that tribunal). Storing a vehicle, regardless of it's state of assembly is NOT a normally accepted practice, within a multi unit residential unit. Therefore, it should be disallowed, otherwise a precedent, would be set permitting this practice going forward. In this case, it would be wise of you to consider, that you have been advised by virtually every poster in this tread that they believe your in the wrong, yet you still continue to persist, that you are right. Therefore I will ask, in that scenario, who is it that is most likely the irrational, the majority, or the one? Right there you should have your answer, if the majority here holds that opinion, how likely is it that the members of the tribunal, will hold the opposite opinion? It would be nice if in life we are always the one with the right opinion, but more often than not, this is not the case, and this appears to be a textbook example.
 

sburns

Well-known member
I highly doubt his lease says anything of the sort.

Sure he can try.
I doubt it as well. You can pretty much put anything you want on the lease, and have someone sign it. But doesn't mean it is enforceable by the Residential Tenancies Act, which is what matters. The safety issue is a decent argument in this case, and as been pointed out on the N7 reason 3, and considering the tenant is in a multiplex they could be considered endangering the safety of the other tenants.
 

hedo2002

Well-known member
Site Supporter
All valid points, BUT just because, for some reason the OP seems to think that this is the ONLY rental unit he/she could possibly afford in the GTA,(why does he/she NEED to live in the downtown core)? It is not a "right" to live downtown, (I have my business located in Thornhill, but reside in Oshawa, simply because the cost of housing stock is much cheaper, in Oshawa. Given MY choice I would live within a 5 minute walk or drive of my shop, but I have NO "right" to do so. Doesn't mean he can, (till this point he/she has NO idea if another tenant has filed a complaint with the landlord), but rather simply chosen to "decide" for the other tenants that they are fine with him/her storing their vehicle inside the unit.

If in fact this is the ONLY unit the OP can possibly reside in, then would it not make sense, to be a "model tenant", rather than simply decide he/she is right and ALL others are wrong, in their opinions and positions? I get the sense that if the LTB orders his/her eviction, it will be as he stated previously, it is because they are "irrational" and not because he/she was in the wrong. As a society we have all agreed, to live within the confines of basically the "good of all, trumps the good of one"

As previously recommended, the OP should sell this project, get the vehicle out of the unit, and move on with his/her life. Then start a project when they are better suited financially and residential wise.

It is FAR harder to own a house today than 35 years ago.
1984 adjusted median toronto household income to 2018: $74K
2018 income $78K
1984 adjusted median toronto house price: $226K
2018 median toronto house price $900K

caveat: including in those prices are condos, there are far more condos sold today than in 1984. In other words if you were to look at detached or semi (what should be considered a "house") the 2018 housing is over $1m.

20% down payment would take FAR longer to save today, especially when you consider that adjusted cost of renting is more expensive now than it has ever been.

20% of 900K vs 20% of 226K when incomes are adjusted to 2018 CPI.

5 year mortgage monthly payment at 1984 rates of 13%, $1993 per month (20% down)
5 year mortgage monthly payment 2018 at 3%, $3559 per month (20% down)

That doesnt even take into consideration that younger people are forced to spend far more on education today or that households make up more income earners today than they did in 1984.
Its nonsense that owning a house now isnt any harder than it was in 1984.
 

hedo2002

Well-known member
Site Supporter
It would depend on how long the OP's tenancy has been in place. Last year, the law, was changed and to be "enforceable" now, a landlord MUST use the Standard Lease Form, as provided for under the Residential Tenant Act. The fiberals, changed that just before they got turfed...lol

I doubt it as well. You can pretty much put anything you want on the lease, and have someone sign it. But doesn't mean it is enforceable by the Residential Tenancies Act, which is what matters. The safety issue is a decent argument in this case, and as been pointed out on the N7 reason 3, and considering the tenant is in a multiplex they could be considered endangering the safety of the other tenants.
 

Mad Mike

Well-known member
It is FAR harder to own a house today than 35 years ago.
1984 adjusted median toronto household income to 2018: $74K
2018 income $78K
1984 adjusted median toronto house price: $226K
2018 median toronto house price $900K

caveat: including in those prices are condos, there are far more condos sold today than in 1984. In other words if you were to look at detached or semi (what should be considered a "house") the 2018 housing is over $1m.

20% down payment would take FAR longer to save today, especially when you consider that adjusted cost of renting is more expensive now than it has ever been.

20% of 900K vs 20% of 226K when incomes are adjusted to 2018 CPI.

5 year mortgage monthly payment at 1984 rates of 13%, $1993 per month (20% down)
5 year mortgage monthly payment 2018 at 3%, $3559 per month (20% down)

That doesnt even take into consideration that younger people are forced to spend far more on education today.
Its nonsense that owning a house now isnt any harder than it was in 1984.able
Sorry but your analysis doesn't pass muster, you're cherry picking numbers to make your argument. CPI and adjusted income/costs are irrelevant - real numbers are available for comparison. Go back and look at the cost of entering the market then and now (as I did).

1) In 84 the median house price was probably $100K, which was impossible for me back then. The median price of a home is not the entry price, check Realtor.ca and you will find starter homes in the $650k range -- lots of them. Those are the homes that cost $60K in 84.
2) You're not looking at median income, you're looking at the income of a 2 person partnership. The average salary in Toronto today is $58.7K, so for 2 persons that's $117.4K -- that's considerably higher than the median family income which includes a considerable number of single family households.
3) Down payments are considerably easier to reach today. First off, you can get in with 5% down -- it was double in '84. You also have RSP assistance that enable you to save by deferring the tax on savings used for a down payment - not available in 84.

Now, here's a history lesson. 30 years ago I had a friends that looked at home ownership the way you do -- years went y where all they did was create excuses to explain why home ownership was out of their reach. Today they spend $2-3000/mo renting. Some buckled down (Kraft dinner and no motorcycle for a few years), made a plan and figured out how to get in the game. Today they live rent free and have $1M or more in equity.

I have a 2 mid 20s children who have figure out home ownership in the GTA with no financial assistance from me. They have lots of friends who argue like you - 2 of them live in my kid's basement and pay him $1500/mo rent.
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
Unfortunately not. It's my opinion and therefore valid. I did mention "to each their own", if you want to store vehicles in the house that really is your business.

Sent from my SM-A530W using Tapatalk
Valid for what? Argument on the internet? That's about all it's worth lol.
 

FLSTC

Well-known member
100% this. Can't imagine any landlord who would want to intentionally pick a fight with a good tenant. Be respectful and landlords typically accomodate reasonable requests. It's becoming a pain to find decent tenants these days.
So true, 1.8% year-over-year vs a new market rate increase for a new tenant is most times not worth the risk that a new tenant just may not pay up.

The motorbike inside the apartment is probably a partial reason. Possible that the Landlady wants him out as he's rabble-rousing with the other tenants of the six-plex (reading between the lines of OP's story).
 

sburns

Well-known member
It would depend on how long the OP's tenancy has been in place. Last year, the law, was changed and to be "enforceable" now, a landlord MUST use the Standard Lease Form, as provided for under the Residential Tenant Act. The fiberals, changed that just before they got turfed...lol
A lease has always been enforcable by the RTA. Just because they updated doesn't mean it has changed. I believe they put out the Standard Lease form to clear up some of these misconceptions, and to follow rules in the RTA. Things like security or damage deposits have always been illegal but yet you see them on leases.
 

Iceman

Well-known member
Valid for what? Argument on the internet? That's about all it's worth lol.
Well excuse me. I've yet to see you put forth any valid facts, only conjecture opinion and antagonizing remarks. Whatever, thanks for coming out...

Sent from my SM-A530W using Tapatalk
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
Well excuse me. I've yet to see you put forth any valid facts, only conjecture opinion and antagonizing remarks. Whatever, thanks for coming out...

Sent from my SM-A530W using Tapatalk
You missed the point.

This thread has zero to do with opinion, what you (or anyone) thinks about a vehicle belonging in your house, his house, or anyone's house means squat.

I re-read my posts, i don't believe i offered any sort of opinion to the OP. I simply stated that it is either law or it's not and whatever else anyone is saying holds no water because it does not pertain to the legality of the situation.

I like you Iceman, don't get all bent over my replies here! :cry:
 

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Hang it from the ceiling. Or. Hang it on a wall.
Art.
Years ago in cottage country a marina owner stored some new boats on his own residential lot. When the town complained and cited a bylaw he replied that since the items weren't registered they were actually fiberglass sculptures. He pointed out that he had deep pockets for lawyers and could make a sizable dent in the town budget if the town wanted to make an issue instead of letting things slide for a short while. The town blinked.

The OP doesn't have deep pockets or he wouldn't be in this situation.

There is a mix of issues here.

The point that the LL appears to be a slumlord has nothing to do with the motorcycle storage so forget about the crappy maintenance issues.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. The OP is storing a motorcycle in his apartment when the intended use of an apartment is for the accommodation of people and their household belongings. A waterbed can weigh more than a Goldwing but the math is irrelevant. To most people the OP is storing a motorcycle and since he's tight on cash he's unlikely to be able to store it somewhere else when it does get assembled.

The right to own a motorcycle isn't in the constitution. Play all the head games you want it's unlikely to be worth the legal costs.
 

K20EF8

Well-known member
Sorry but your analysis doesn't pass muster, you're cherry picking numbers to make your argument. CPI and adjusted income/costs are irrelevant - real numbers are available for comparison. Go back and look at the cost of entering the market then and now (as I did).
My analysis passes all the muster. I made it a point not to cherry pick any statistics.
Adjusted income/costs are most certainly not irrelevant.

1) In 84 the median house price was probably $100K, which was impossible for me back then. The median price of a home is not the entry price, check Realtor.ca and you will find starter homes in the $650k range -- lots of them. Those are the homes that cost $60K in 84.
I compared median home prices because that's all I could find. It doesnt matter either way, 100K to 950K or 60K to 650K

2) You're not looking at median income, you're looking at the income of a 2 person partnership. The average salary in Toronto today is $58.7K, so for 2 persons that's $117.4K -- that's considerably higher than the median family income which includes a considerable number of single family households.
I searched for individual income statistics but to no avail. All I can find for the 80s is household income. Either way that works out in your arguments favour, not mine. Number of income earners in a household has increased since 1984 (more woman work now), meaning the household incomes in 1984 were made up more of single income earners, yet despite this adjusted household income has barely risen.
Your average salary doubling argument is laughable, that's not the way it works and you could apply that to 1984 as well.
3) Down payments are considerably easier to reach today. First off, you can get in with 5% down -- it was double in '84. You also have RSP assistance that enable you to save by deferring the tax on savings used for a down payment - not available in 84.
Down payments are not easier now, Ive clearly laid out the numbers, 10% of 65K (144K) in 2018 dollars is a lot easier to save than 5% of $650K.
Not to mention that cost of renting is higher now, making it even harder to save. Cost of education is also very high, adults are living at home and working until a lot later in age before they move out. This also weakens your household argument.
The big flaw in your argument is this:
Go to the bank as an average person, put 5% down and let them laugh at you when you try and get a mortgage for $617.5K, thats not even considering any stress testing.
Now, here's a history lesson. 30 years ago I had a friends that looked at home ownership the way you do -- years went y where all they did was create excuses to explain why home ownership was out of their reach. Today they spend $2-3000/mo renting. Some buckled down (Kraft dinner and no motorcycle for a few years), made a plan and figured out how to get in the game. Today they live rent free and have $1M or more in equity.
Thats great, not a single person I know who bought their first house in the 70s or 80s ever mentioned kraft dinner and buckling down.
Most of them have no more than a high school education and many of them only had 1 person working in the house.

I have a 2 mid 20s children who have figure out home ownership in the GTA with no financial assistance from me. They have lots of friends who argue like you - 2 of them live in my kid's basement and pay him $1500/mo rent.
The millennials I know that bought property all had help from their parents in some way. Whether it was a 100K loan from the equity they had in their house or (like a couple of my friends) allowing their children to live with them into their early 30s, paying no rent or money for food etc.
I know someone whos parents paid for his undergrad, his masters, and he never paid a penny for rent or food for 33 years of his life. Thats how he bought his property.

The fact is its never been harder to buy a house in this city. Marriage, children and house ownership were all normal things at age 25 back in the 80s, those days are over now, the vast majority of 25y/o cant afford kids and housing.

Your generation and the one before yours were largely uneducated, many single income earners. Yet you could still buy houses, boats and cottages, food. Your mortgages were small, houses were bigger with more land. In the space of 35 years the value of houses increased by a factor of 10.
Do you think 35 years from now these 800K houses are going to be worth $8mill?
Face it, your generation had it easier.
 

Trials

Well-known member
... Your generation and the one before yours were largely uneducated ...
and Those would be the generations that taught the current generation everything they know! Scary, isn't it?
 

Mad Mike

Well-known member
My analysis passes all the muster. I made it a point not to cherry pick any statistics.
Adjusted income/costs are most certainly not irrelevant.


I compared median home prices because that's all I could find. It doesnt matter either way, 100K to 950K or 60K to 650K


I searched for individual income statistics but to no avail. All I can find for the 80s is household income. Either way that works out in your arguments favour, not mine. Number of income earners in a household has increased since 1984 (more woman work now), meaning the household incomes in 1984 were made up more of single income earners, yet despite this adjusted household income has barely risen.
Your average salary doubling argument is laughable, that's not the way it works and you could apply that to 1984 as well.

Down payments are not easier now, Ive clearly laid out the numbers, 10% of 65K (144K) in 2018 dollars is a lot easier to save than 5% of $650K.
Not to mention that cost of renting is higher now, making it even harder to save. Cost of education is also very high, adults are living at home and working until a lot later in age before they move out. This also weakens your household argument.
The big flaw in your argument is this:
Go to the bank as an average person, put 5% down and let them laugh at you when you try and get a mortgage for $617.5K, thats not even considering any stress testing.

Thats great, not a single person I know who bought their first house in the 70s or 80s ever mentioned kraft dinner and buckling down.
Most of them have no more than a high school education and many of them only had 1 person working in the house.


The millennials I know that bought property all had help from their parents in some way. Whether it was a 100K loan from the equity they had in their house or (like a couple of my friends) allowing their children to live with them into their early 30s, paying no rent or money for food etc.
I know someone whos parents paid for his undergrad, his masters, and he never paid a penny for rent or food for 33 years of his life. Thats how he bought his property.

The fact is its never been harder to buy a house in this city. Marriage, children and house ownership were all normal things at age 25 back in the 80s, those days are over now, the vast majority of 25y/o cant afford kids and housing.

Your generation and the one before yours were largely uneducated, many single income earners. Yet you could still buy houses, boats and cottages, food. Your mortgages were small, houses were bigger with more land. In the space of 35 years the value of houses increased by a factor of 10.
Do you think 35 years from now these 800K houses are going to be worth $8mill?
Face it, your generation had it easier.
Like I said before, carry on with the excuses and pay an investor's mortgage with your rent -- or -- make a plan and get into the game, your choice.
If you're an average Toronto income earner, put away 15% of your gross income into an RSP ($8600) AND all of your tax refund ($2900). In 3 years you should have $35K. If your partner does same, $70K between you. Unless you have scortched credit, any bank will lend you almost $900K. To be reasonable, an entry level home at $700K with a $650K mortgage is a no brainer, mortgage payments under $3K/mo.
 

Trials

Well-known member
The key to owning a nice home in downtown Toronto is to win a lottery. A really Big one!
Then you can buy the entire building complex, fill it with motorcycles and kick the landlord out.
 

Top Bottom