Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[feepa]

just like other areas, families with kids will be rejected for other acceptable reasons, but the real reason will be kids.

Most 2-3 bedroom condos in high rises aren't an ideal setup for raising a family anyways, especially once a kid reaches about 4-5 years old.

[240glt]

I found that allowing responsible pet owners in my rental property has helped ensure high quality, long term tenancy. But that's my choice. I wouldn't have a problem with kids in that house either, but I can see why some might not, just as some might prefer not to frequent a bar that allows kids

We're all free market thinkers here right ? Let the market decide

[Coldrsx]

But that's the thing, the market cannot decide at the moment... and those that decide are discriminating based on age.

'Most 2-3 bedroom condos in high rises aren't an ideal setup for raising a family anyways, especially once a kid reaches about 4-5 years old.'

Maybe let us allow those families decide what's best for them.

[240glt]

Sure it can. There's nothing stopping anyone from buying or building an apartment complex that accepts families with children as tenants.

Perhaps the issue is not the lack of accommodation, but the lack of demand

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

But that's the thing, the market cannot decide at the moment... and those that decide are discriminating based on age.

'Most 2-3 bedroom condos in high rises aren't an ideal setup for raising a family anyways, especially once a kid reaches about 4-5 years old.'

Maybe let us allow those families decide what's best for them.

I'm not discriminating based on age. I'm discriminating on the probability of something happening to my property. I'm not comfortable with the additional risks & liabilities inherent with renting to families. Has nothing to do with the direct age of those involved.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Sure it can. There's nothing stopping anyone from buying or building an apartment complex that accepts families with children as tenants.

Perhaps the issue is not the lack of accommodation, but the lack of demand

Problem is that MANY apartments do not allow kids and MANY boilerplate condo bylaws do not permit children under 18.

Maybe we should discriminate on race or income or hair colour... come on now guys, honestly.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Sure it can. There's nothing stopping anyone from buying or building an apartment complex that accepts families with children as tenants.

Perhaps the issue is not the lack of accommodation, but the lack of demand

No, no. You see there's a vast conspiracy afoot to force good urban people into the suburbs through the demonization of children. If only these poor urban families could force landlords to accept them, then everything would be perfect!

It's entirely about this one narrow issue & not the whole host of reasons that have made the suburbs a better place for the vast, vast, vast majority to raise a family than the centre of town for half a century.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Maybe we should discriminate on race or income or hair colour... come on now guys, honestly.

I run credit checks on each & every one of my prospective tenants and have asked for letters of employment in the past. Of course I can discriminate on income, as I can set my rents at an amount I choose, which naturally precludes those that can't make enough to afford it.

Discrimination itself isn't a bad thing. It's unfair & unfounded discrimination that is harmful, but as there's legitimate differences between families & childless tenants there's plenty of room to draw a line that's entirely reasonable & lawful.

[Coldrsx]

^But with it allowable to discriminate based on age, you do not need a reason or rational and that's part of the issue.

[Kevin_foster]

Or, a landlord could either (1) increase damage deposit based on # of occupants regardless of age, or (2) build a 30 storey bouncy castle apartment complex.

I'd vouch for 2 pls.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Condo bylaws would be trumped by the Condo Act which would be trumped by the Human Rights Act.

except that according to the alberta human rights commissions, "age is not always a protected ground" and one of the areas where that exists is tenancies:

"Age is not a protected ground in the two areas listed below. No one can make a human rights complaint based on age in these areas:

Goods, services, accommodation or facilities that are customarily available to the public:

For example, a movie theatre offers lower ticket prices to seniors (over 65 years old) only. Because age is not protected in the area on services, a 55-year-old could not make a complaint of discrimination based on age because the theatre does not offer them the lower ticket price.

Tenancy:

For example, a landlord advertises that an apartment building is for adults only and specifies that all tenants must be over 21 years old. Because age is not protected in the area of tenancy, a 19-year-old could not make a complaint of discrimination based on age.

Individuals under the age of 18 are protected from discrimination based on all grounds except age

Individuals under the age of 18 can make human rights complaints based on all grounds except the ground of age. For example, a 16-year-old can make a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission if they experience discrimination in the areas of employment practices, tenancy, etc. based on the grounds of race, gender, physical disability, etc., but not on the ground of age."

[Coldrsx]

Case in point though Ken.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Kevin_foster

Or, a landlord could either (1) increase damage deposit based on # of occupants regardless of age, or (2) build a 30 storey bouncy castle apartment complex.

I'd vouch for 2 pls.

2 is an option but 1 is not.

the maximum amount of a security deposit in alberta is one month's net rent.

"A security deposit cannot be more than one months rent. The amount is based on the rent charged at the start of tenancy. The deposit amount cannot be increased if the rent increases.

A security deposit plus any refundable fees charged by a landlord (for example, a refundable key fee), must total one months rent or less. If however, there is a separate non-refundable, one-time fee for something like having a pet in the premises, that fee does not form part of the security deposit. The security deposit plus any non-refundable fee can equal more than one months rent."

i'm pretty sure it would be impossible to classify someone's kids as pets and request an additional non-refundable fee for renting to them.

[feepa]

I think Cold is a bit out of lunch with his "Alberta is the only province to allow discrimination based on age..."

Age: In Ontario, age protections related to housing only apply to
people over the age of 15. British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and
Newfoundland allow housing to be restricted to people over the age of
55. Alberta’s human rights legislation does not protect people from age
discrimination at all. In most provinces and territories, teenage boys
and girls living away from their parents are not protected from age
discrimination.

[GreenSPACE]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Condo bylaws would be trumped by the Condo Act which would be trumped by the Human Rights Act.

Unfortunately this is not the case. The Condo Act currently supersedes the Human Right Acts, if the information I got is correct.

[GreenSPACE]

I think the issue is that the current Human Right Act has a special provision to adult-only buildings that doesn't need to be there.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by kcantor

i'm pretty sure it would be impossible to classify someone's kids as pets and request an additional non-refundable fee for renting to them.

Yeah, that's a one way ticket to getting in the news.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Albicaulis

^
Not too sure, I'm a bit outside my area of expertise on this one.
I just thought that noodlenoodle should be able to rent his property to whoever he wanted. If he wants a tenant that doesn't have kids, so be it. If he wants a tenant that will not have more than 7 cactus's, so be it.

Why should it be different for an owner of one unit over one with 10,000 units?

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by GreenSPACE

Unfortunately this is not the case. The Condo Act currently supersedes the Human Right Acts, if the information I got is correct.

i could be wrong but i don't think so...

the human rights act specifically states that "Condominium corporations are responsible for ensuring that their services, facilities and bylaws do not discriminate against residents based on any of the protected grounds."

the condominium act specifically states that "Where a conflict arises between the operation of sections 53 to 56 of this Act and the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, sections 53 to 56 of this Act prevail."

and the cplea website regarding the residential tenancies act comes full circle confirming that "landlords are allowed to put age restrictions on rental properties. They can advertise their properties as “adults only” or “18+”. Landlords can refuse to rent to people because they do not meet the age restrictions.

In the case of condominium rentals, there may be bylaws covering age restrictions. If the condominium bylaws specify a minimum age to live in the building, then anyone under that age cannot live there. The bylaws apply no matter what the lease says or what the tenant and landlord have agreed to."

[GreenSPACE]

^That is the information I got from MLA David Shepherd. It is part of why the issue is more complicated than it appears on the surface.