Rent Controls...

TORONTO (April 3, 1991) - In a published official response to NDP Housing Minister David Cooke's consultation paper on rent control, Fp leader Robert Metz went so far as to suggest that landlords in Ontario are virtually operating under the terms of a dictatorship.

Freedom Party's response, titled Rent Control is No Option in reaction to the housing ministry's Rent Control Options consultation paper, made it clear that we would not be fooled by the illusion that the NDP government would seriously even consider "options" (i.e., choice) within rent control. "Although the consultation paper purports to be a vehicle to assess various options to affordable housing, only one option is offered as the basis of discussion: entrenched state control of ALL rental accommodation in Ontario," said Fp leader Robert Metz.

As a political party document on the issue of rent control, Freedom Party's "No Option" response is possibly the most comprehensive single document available on the subject. From theory to practice, the failure of rent controls to provide affordable housing is explained in the simplest terms possible.

Unfortunately, as a means of attracting votes, rent controls are a smashing success. "Because tenants outnumber landlords," observed Metz, "the real attraction of rent control to politicians is obvious: they can be used to buy votes from tenants, particularly if those tenants are falsely led to believe that rent controls work in their long-term interest. Rent controls have very little to do with affordable housing and a lot to do with political opportunism."

"Although Freedom Party's principled position against rent controls is admittedly incompatible with the views of the current NDP administration," Metz wrote to NDP Housing Minister Dave Cooke in a covering letter accompanying the Freedom Party brief, "I would strongly urge you not to dismiss our submission out of hand."

In the expectation that phasing out rent controls was not a serious option to the NDP, part of Freedom Party's brief was contained under a separate section entitled "Options Within Rent Control", wherein we endorsed, on the grounds that it met the criteria set out in the Ministry's consultation paper, a submission made to the committee by John Schnurr of Marshall Resources.

In his brief, Mr. Schnurr proposed a local rent control option at the municipal level which would give both landlords and tenants a means to develop a system of rent control specifically tailored to their local needs and thus make regulations more responsive to varying vacancy rates and housing differences between major Ontario centers. As an ultimate means of phasing out rent controls, local options could have the same effect as they did on the Sunday shopping issue (thanks to the previous Liberal administration).

Though Freedom Party's brief acknowledged that we will be forced to live with continued rent controls for some time, it did not accept the Ministry's justifications for their continued implementation. Past Ontario administrations justified rent controls (incorrectly) on the grounds that they would provide "affordable housing." However, the NDP has now shifted radically away from the issue of "affordability" and is simplistically justifying rent controls on the grounds of "tenant protection against high rent increases. "

"This is an unclear and inconsistent objective," charged Metz "Why should all tenants be 'protected' against 'high' rent increases? It seems that rather than helping only those who require housing assistance and thus alleviate the affordability problem, the NDP approach to rent controls is to give the well-to-do the same benefits of cheaper rent."

Thus, Ontario's rent control system has evolved into a universal solution to an isolated problem: the affordability of housing to the lowest income groups in society. The universal rent control approach adopted by the NDP offers startling proof that contrary to that party's stated commitment to helping the less fortunate in society, it is more interested in securing the votes of tenants everywhere than in dealing with the problem at hand.

ONTARIO RENT CONTROL IN PRACTICE

Selected Highlights from Fp's Rent Control Response:

Taxpayers shell out over $41,000,000 annually to pay for a rent control system that does not produce the results promised and that violates private property rights and freedom of association.

Few new "affordable" rental units have been privately built without some form of government subsidy, meaning that taxpayers must pay again.

GET THE DETAILS! Read Freedom Party's brief Rent Control is No Option.

Statistics indicate far too many people who need low cost housing, which controls were supposed to ensure, simply aren't getting such accommodation.

The Ontario government is forcing taxpayers to shell out $35 million in 1991 towards housing projects, including $15 million to help private landlords carry out major repairs on low-rise buildings.

Rental construction has been shrinking in Ontario compared to total housing since the early 1980s.

Tenants who have been sold a false sense of security through rent controls are now finding themselves faced with low vacancy rates and often feel trapped in what they describe as "crummy apartments."

The greatest beneficiaries of rent controls are the well-to-do who choose to hang on to artificially underpriced rental units, thus reducing their availability to those in need.

Fp RECOMMENDATIONS:

All newly constructed rental accommodation in Ontario should be exempt from rent controls.

Existing rent controls should be phased out over a five-year period.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002