Brian Crombie Radio Hour - Epi 1475 - Purpose Built Rental Properties with Tony Irwin

Tonight on The Brian Crombie Hour, Brian interviews Tony Irwin about Purpose Built Rental Properties and the housing crisis in the GTA. Tony Irwin, President and CEO of Rental Housing Canada and Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario, discusses the challenges and opportunities in transitioning from condominiums to purposeful rental housing development. He explains that while the two types of housing may look similar to consumers, the economic models are fundamentally different, with condominiums benefiting from pre-sales for financing while purposeful rentals require significant upfront equity and may not be profitable for the first decade. 

Tony highlights that pre-construction condos were often sold as investments based on expected appreciation, while purpose-built rentals are sold as homes. We discuss the advantages of professional management in purpose-built rental buildings, emphasizing the creation of community and long-term resident satisfaction. He discusses the challenges in the housing market, emphasizing the need for government intervention to address declining building starts and permits. Tony highlights the importance of combining government action with factors like lower interest rates and economic confidence to stimulate development. He expressed concern about job losses in the industry and the long-term implications of not planning adequately for future housing demands.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
SAGA nine sixty am or its management.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Good easing, everyone, and welcome to the Brian Crombie Radio Hour.

Speaker 3 (00:20):
I've got an interesting gentleman to introduce you to tonight
and a fascinating topic that I think is a real issue.
Tony Erwin is the president and CEO of an organization
called Rental Housing Canada r HC. He's also president CEO
of another organization, another organization called the Federation of Rental
Housing Providers of Ontario f r PO, and so, you know,

(00:43):
both focused on the rental housing business. And we're going
to talk a little bit about rental housing. You know,
construction condos are at an all time low. Some people
are thinking that there's an ice age or even worse
in construction of condominiums. And certainly there's a huge inventory
of condos in the market. So lots of companies, lots

(01:04):
of developers are switching to rental housing. And is that
good or is that bad? Tony Irwin, what do you think?

Speaker 4 (01:10):
I agree with you?

Speaker 5 (01:12):
I would say, you know, it's it's we are seeing
I mean, I guess to answer a question directly, we
need more purposal rental housing built. That's really what's important
in this conversation. And so you know, if it's something
that those who have built condo condo for example, are
able to make that pivot and build purposal rental, then great.

(01:35):
I would just say that, you know, from certainly conversations
I've had, it's it is a tough thing to transition to.
It's a very different kind of economic model. So certainly
it's something that we have heard is being explored. But
I would say that, you know, it's something that you
have to have the resilience and have the strength and
frankly the financial sort of wherewithal to do it.

Speaker 4 (01:58):
But if there are people who can do it, and
then I think that's a great thing.

Speaker 2 (02:01):
Why is it difficult?

Speaker 3 (02:02):
This maybe a silly question, but they're both houses in
the sky. Why is it different? Why is it a
difficult job to convert from a condominium to rental a
purposeful rental business?

Speaker 5 (02:14):
Yeah? I think the biggest challenge with it, of course,
is that in the condominium business, you're selling seventy percent
or that range of the units before you begin construction.
You've got that money to help you finance the project. Obviously,
purposal rental you do not, so you need a lot
more equity upfront, and the returns look very different. Building

(02:35):
a purposal rental building you may not you know, turn
a profit for the first ten.

Speaker 4 (02:40):
Years maybe more.

Speaker 5 (02:41):
Whereas obviously condominiums you're being able to pre sell the
majority of the units. That just makes for very different
economic picture, and so requirements to be able to build.
The two are different. And of course one is because
it's it's you know, all the pre sale and it's
a ownership product. You're in and out, whereas purposal rental,

(03:04):
you know, this is a long term play. Members in
my associations who are in this business want to be
in it for decades. It's in many cases, you know,
family businesses have been in it for a long time.
That's what they want to do. But you have to
obviously recognize what it means to be in that kind
of a business model. They're just two very different things
for those reasons.

Speaker 3 (03:25):
You've talked about how the economics are different, Are the
products different?

Speaker 2 (03:29):
Are they are the boxes the same?

Speaker 5 (03:32):
Well, I mean, without getting into you know, I'm not
you know, an architect or have all that sort of experience.
But in terms of touring buildings, which I do touring
purposal rental buildings, you know, newer product that I you know,
have a chance to go in and look at now
looks very much the same. If you went into two
buildings that were condominium versus new rental, I think you'd

(03:56):
be hard pressed to be able to pick the difference.
If it was the blind taste test. Amenities are very similar,
finish is very similar. Really, It's you know, while there
may be some differences in terms of building novel perhaps
again I'm not an expert at that, but as a
consumer walking in and looking at the two products products.

Speaker 4 (04:15):
They are very similar.

Speaker 5 (04:16):
They do look because personal rental buildings of today are
not the same as they were, you know, in the
sixties and seventies. Nothing to say bad about them. It's
just that as we evolve, you know, obviously recognizing what consumers,
what residents.

Speaker 4 (04:33):
Want in their homes.

Speaker 5 (04:35):
I would say personal rental builders have adapted, and our
building product that is very much looking feels like condominium.

Speaker 3 (04:44):
So I had a gentleman on my show just this
past week who said that in the pre construction condo business,
they were selling the math, but.

Speaker 2 (04:52):
In the purpose rental building, you're selling a home.

Speaker 3 (04:55):
Because the vast majority of people that were buying pre
construction condos, we're just buying an investment. We're thinking that
they would flip it and or they would rent it out.
So it was an investment and it was all based
on the math, the expectation that appreciation would be such
that you could flip it. But when you're actually renting
an apartment to somebody, you're renting somewhere where they're going

(05:17):
to live. So you're selling the home. So one is
selling the math, the other one is selling the home.

Speaker 2 (05:21):
What do you think of that, sir?

Speaker 4 (05:23):
Interesting? I hadn't thought of it like that.

Speaker 5 (05:25):
But I mean, when we go back to the nineteen
eighties when we're talking now about MERB and MERB you
know existed then when when things like the MERB program
and capital gains were Copple Games was introduced and MERB
was was was stopped. You can look at charts from
that time that show the purpose of rental construction going

(05:45):
up and up and up, and then you see it sort.

Speaker 4 (05:47):
Of fall off a cliff and so.

Speaker 5 (05:49):
And that's because the economics to build purpose or rental
no longer made sense. So what happened, Well, it's not
as if nothing came along in its place. What we saw,
of course, was the emergence of the condominium you know,
economy in construction, which became the de facto rental market.

Speaker 4 (06:06):
In places like Toronto and Vancouver.

Speaker 5 (06:08):
So you know, from that perspective, that's kind of what
because as we spoke about earlier, the economics for that
did make sense.

Speaker 4 (06:16):
So thinking about it the.

Speaker 5 (06:18):
Way you have put it, it is an interesting perspective,
and I you know, it brings true to me in
in in a certain sense, because I do think that's
obviously what did happen.

Speaker 4 (06:30):
We were, you know, we we were we.

Speaker 5 (06:32):
Needed a replacement or I shouldn't say we needed due
to policy changes and otherwise interest rates and other things
that happened obviously, and I would say at that time,
governments you know, obviously didn't you know, did not continue
to or didn't think that prioritizing purposal rental or supporting
it was what they wanted to do. Numerous reasons for that,

(06:54):
I'm sure, but you know, because of that or or
as a result of some of those decisions and factors
at the time then we saw the condomyny market become
what it did. And to your point, we relied on
a lot of investors to buy those units. Yes, they
didn't became rentals, which we need. But I do think
what you're saying, there's there's some I think history would

(07:17):
suggest that there's some truth in that.

Speaker 3 (07:18):
Definitely, So if if if a lot and some people
think it's actually a majority of these condos have been
bought by investors that are going to then turn around
and rent them out. Is there a difference between your
landlord being someone that owns the whole building the purpose
of a rental versus your landlord being someone that owns
one or two or six condos.

Speaker 5 (07:39):
Well, I mean it's certainly from my perspective in terms
of the you know, the hats I wear that the
companies and members I represent who are professional you know,
developers and managers and operators of purposal rental. Of course
I'm biased towards them. It's not to say that someone
who owns an individual unit or is renting out there
you know, a single family home or you know, other

(08:01):
other types of rental combination aren't good.

Speaker 4 (08:04):
For sure, there are, but you.

Speaker 5 (08:06):
Know, I would always sort of point to, you know,
professional managers, operators in the business, uh, you know, for
many years have that long term view and really see
their their their buildings as communities. So it is building
in a sort of entire community with the amenities. You're
really wanting to create an environment where their residents are

(08:29):
like family. It is their home, as you've said, and
they want to create that sort of environment where people
you know, want to be there, enjoy their combination, enjoy
relationships with other residents who are who are there in
the building, and it really is.

Speaker 4 (08:45):
That kind of a community.

Speaker 5 (08:46):
And I think we do see that quite often across
Canada and our members, you know, buildings and community. So
I'm biased towards that. It's not to say that there
aren't good in all. There of course is, but I
think there's an advantage to living somewhere that is professionally
managed by the company that's you know, that has that
experience and frankly is committed to for the long term

(09:07):
to the success of that and the happiness and enjoyment
of the community that they have built.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
So community is interesting.

Speaker 3 (09:15):
I ended up interviewing the CEO of Fitzrovia, a fairly
significant player in the purpose built rental business, and he was, yes,
he was effectively disagreeing with what you said that the
product is very soilar. He was saying that the amenities
that he produces and provides in his rental are far
larger and far more significant than you'd have in a condo.

(09:36):
And one of the reasons why, he said, is because
you want to build that community. Because he said that
what you want is people to stay longer than the year,
and so the way that you get them to stay
longer than the year is that you make them get
some friends, make some friends and associates within their community.

Speaker 2 (09:51):
And the way you do that is through the amenity.

Speaker 3 (09:52):
So he said, the amenities in a condo are like
the icing on a cake to try to sell the cake.
So it's there for to make to make it look good,
but you may not actually ever use it. But the
amenities in a rental are to make you build community,
and so the amenities.

Speaker 2 (10:08):
Are very different.

Speaker 3 (10:08):
And then he went on and he said that the
sweet sizes tend to be larger, the number of bedrooms
tend to be greater, that the mix of suites and
a typical condo building would be studios and ones, while
the mix in a typical rental building would be more ones,
twos and threes because they're more family oriented and wanting

(10:32):
people to stay longer period versus investor oriented. And then he,
I think finally said that the quality of the workmanship,
the finishes, the construction materials, et cetera are appreciably different,
just because in a condo building, the developer has built
and then has sold as soon as the place opens,
versus in the rental as you said, the landlord's going

(10:54):
to be reselling, re renting every year for ten to fifteen,
twenty years.

Speaker 2 (10:58):
What do you think of that?

Speaker 3 (10:59):
Is? If the writer is he just giving me some
smoke to market this company.

Speaker 4 (11:04):
Let's I'm not going to take on Adrian Rocca.

Speaker 5 (11:06):
He is, you know, phenomenal leader, visionary as a great
company and great products, so I'm not going to take
issue with any of what he has said. He's more
knowledge able some of this than I am. I think
my sort of point to all this is people have
a certain image in their mind of what they think
perposal rental buildings are, and I think a lot of
that is based on sort of you know, uh, you know, attitudes,

(11:31):
and perspectives that no longer represent what's being built today.

Speaker 4 (11:35):
And I think that's to some extent natural.

Speaker 5 (11:38):
As we evolved, there are a lot of things, cars,
lots of things you can speak to that aren't the
same now as they were, you know.

Speaker 4 (11:43):
Several decades ago.

Speaker 5 (11:44):
So I think part of that is now is is
it kind of non surprising, But part of it is
because people just again have these.

Speaker 4 (11:51):
Long held views.

Speaker 5 (11:52):
They don't maybe go into buildings themselves. They just it's
what they kind of hear or see or what they've
thought doe to sort of, you know, some pre conceived notion.
They may not actually accurately reflect what's happening today. So
we often talk about it. And I've been in some
of Adrian's buildings and they are phenomenal. I'm not you know,
I'm not don't have the qualified to speak to that.

(12:15):
The absolutely actually the actual level finishes and all that.
I would just say that the point I would like
to sort of make is that when you go into
purpose and rental buildings now, they would surprise a lot
of people based on what they think that they would
be like due to some of.

Speaker 4 (12:30):
The things I was just talking about.

Speaker 5 (12:31):
If they walk into a building now, I think they
would be quite surprised at what they would see. It's
not the apartment building of the you know, of yesteryear
of decades ago, and people have those images and perceptions.

Speaker 4 (12:42):
I would say to people, go look at one, go see.

Speaker 5 (12:45):
One, because they are very different, and they do, you know,
they do have that they are they are trying to
create those communities that a Green talked about, and I
think that's that's very much what I see. Whether it's
in Toronto or Halifax, or Vancouver or Montreal, I've seen
buildings and other and I'm saying big cities. We have
members who build in tertiary markets, smaller communities that don't

(13:08):
build in large cities, and because that's their business model,
that's what they do. And you know they obviously they
also build product that is I think a lot different
than what many would assume it would be like.

Speaker 4 (13:19):
So that's really the point though.

Speaker 3 (13:20):
I think this brand inner position is important. I've been
to community meetings where you know, the communities are negative
toward purpose build rental and positive to condominiums, and I
think they think because there's going to be a you know,
a higher income, higher value, nicer people that are moving
into something they own, and people that move into a
place they rent aren't going to take care of the facility,

(13:44):
their suite, their community they're building as well.

Speaker 2 (13:48):
Is that true?

Speaker 4 (13:50):
You know?

Speaker 5 (13:51):
We when I go to buildings and speak to members,
you know, they have residents who lived their ten twenty
thirty years.

Speaker 4 (13:57):
They take tremendous.

Speaker 5 (13:58):
Pride in where they live and yes, they have their
own unit, but they also are are concerned about the
the you know, communal space that everyone uses.

Speaker 4 (14:06):
And so I really do see.

Speaker 5 (14:08):
That and I do believe that that that certainly is.

Speaker 4 (14:12):
Is the case.

Speaker 5 (14:13):
You know, people, uh, they really do, they really do, uh,
you know, take care.

Speaker 4 (14:19):
And where they're living.

Speaker 5 (14:20):
And I think we know nimism is alive, and well
we know that we know that there are still people
who again hold perceptions, property values, all things you've talked about.
I hear it still now and I really, of course,
you know, you know, fundamentally believe that's not true. We
really need to change attitudes and perceptions to say having

(14:42):
a purposal rent to building in your community is going
to be a positive. I mean we need housing, I
think that's pretty clear. And having a development like this, yes,
it has to still meet certain you know, there have
to be public has to be public input, and we
have to ensure that you know that it fits, you know,
in terms of the foreplate and fit where you want
to build it. But you know, these attitudes that it's

(15:03):
just bad on its face just because it is.

Speaker 4 (15:06):
I think we really need to change that. We really
need to shift attitudes that say.

Speaker 5 (15:11):
And as I think you and I both know that
a lot of European cities were rental. We're renting is
very much accepted. It is a way of life, and
I don't think people have the same attitudes, and I
really think.

Speaker 4 (15:22):
It would be we really need to change that in Canada.

Speaker 5 (15:25):
I think going forward, it's got to be something that
people as I'm looking at my own kids, where are
they going to live? You know, I want there to
be you know, quality purpose or rental buildings for them
to be able to as options as we need all
kinds of housing options, but I want that kind of
product to be available because they might that might be
what works best for them. And I'm not looking at

(15:46):
it saying this is a bad thing or negative thing.
It's an essential thing and we need people to be
I think to come around to the idea that this
is not the housing of last resort. It's something that
we need to embrace.

Speaker 3 (15:58):
We're trying tonight with Tony or when he's President CEO
of the Canadian Rental Housing UH, Rental Housing Canada Organization.
We're talking about rental housing, purpose built rentals, and we're
talking about the housing market and UH and some people
think of housing crisis that we're currently in. We're gonna
take two minutes for a break, for some messages.

Speaker 2 (16:16):
And come back with our guest, Tony Irwin in just
two minutes. Stay with us, everyone back in, Back in too.

Speaker 1 (16:25):
Stream us live at SAGA nine sixty am dot ca A.

Speaker 2 (16:39):
Come back, everyone to the Brian Cromby Radio.

Speaker 3 (16:41):
We're chatting tonight with Tony Irwin of the Rental Housing
Canada Organization about rental housing, about the housing business, Sir.

Speaker 2 (16:50):
The statistics this past.

Speaker 3 (16:51):
Weekend that came out is that building starts are gonna
be the lowest they've been in thirty years. UH, that
we've got, you know, a nice age in reconstruction condos
from a start standpoint, not from necessarily a delivery standpoint.
This year and last year are going to be the
years of highest deliveries of condominiums in the marketplace, but

(17:14):
that starts are something like sixty seventy percent down from
prior years. Condo starts down ninety five percent from prior years.
Sales are down dramatically. I understand that condo prices are
down dramatically. There's one example of green Park that was
selling in Oakville at twelve hundred and fourteen hundred bucks
a buildable square foot and wasn't selling, and then reduced

(17:35):
it to six twenty five and sold out like that's
almost a fifty percent decrease in selling prices. I understand
that rental rates are down ten to fifteen percent on average.
You've got I just saw today Benjamin Tall, who is
probably one of the foremost economists at CIBC on real

(17:56):
estate and housing, coming to a conference that.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
You got coming up in a month or two. What
do you think he's going to say, what's going on?
What's gone wrong with our housing sector?

Speaker 5 (18:04):
Well, Benjamin is like rad He speaks at a lot
of our functions and events in the industry, as you've
pointed out, and so I heard him speak at the
Canadian Apartment Investment Conference in Toronto, a few weeks ago,
and always very interested to hear what Benjamin has to say.
You know, he did in that conversation to the attendees there.
You know, I remember him remarking that he thought he

(18:26):
wasn't sure that the sort of the model of pre
selling seventy percent or so of condominiums before he put
a shovel in the ground is ever going.

Speaker 4 (18:34):
To come back. I mean, you'd have to ask him.

Speaker 5 (18:36):
He didn't elaborate as to why he thinks that necessarily,
but he did make the convent he's not sure that
that's ever going to return.

Speaker 4 (18:43):
We'll see, you know, what happens down the line.

Speaker 5 (18:44):
I do think that obviously, what's happening in the condominien space,
I think we'll be here for a while before maybe
it starts to rebound. But I'm not I'm more as
you've set a rental personal rental guy that I am
a condo guy. So what's happening in the perposal rental space?
And so you know, as I think you've pointed out,
and we in our conversations with government, yes we're still

(19:05):
seeing a lot of deliveries. And that's been the case
the last couple of years.

Speaker 4 (19:08):
As you know.

Speaker 5 (19:10):
I mean, those projects have taken many years to get
to this point. They've been in the pipeline three, four
or five years or more. So, yes, we're seeing a
number of buildings come online, and we will saw that
last year, and we'll see that this year. What's going
to happen the next couple of years when what's in
the pipeline now is done, what's coming after it? Very little,

(19:30):
very little is coming after it. And so that's something
that should be concerning to all of us that we
went from a period where we did see you know,
started going back to twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen, after the
election the four government, they made some changes that did
certainly seem to spur on interest rates were still low.
Some of the policy changes, for example, the exemption from

(19:51):
rent control for new construction, a few things like that,
did help to get shovels back in the ground and
get construction going. We all know what happened during the pandemic.
Since then, we've obviously there has been this decline. Interest
rates of course have started coming down, not as much
as they should. Benjamin, to help me, I think believes
what we will continue to see more cuts, maybe one

(20:11):
more this year and a few more next year that
will help. But you know, at the end of the day,
what has happened, what has happened is government fees and charges.
That's what's happened.

Speaker 2 (20:20):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (20:20):
The the.

Speaker 5 (20:21):
Rapid uh you know, sort of eye popping escalation of
government fees and taxes, and how that's impacted the ability
to build purpose or rental housing has has made development, uh,
you know, in in most circumstances not pencil and you
mentioned rising rents and and and are sorry we're dropping

(20:42):
rents and rising vacancies in some markets. We would contend
that's that's what healthy markets do. That's supply and demand.
That's what we're seeing. We're seeing, you know, more supply
than there were people looking, and so that of course
has corresponding impacts on rents coming down.

Speaker 4 (20:59):
And vacancies going up. So we think that's healthy.

Speaker 5 (21:01):
That's what healthy markets should be able to do when
they're allowed to. But going forward, I think we should
all be concerned about the fact that we do not
see a lot of it. And you can, whether you talk
to Richard lyle rescont or Dave looks at Build or
you know myself, I think we all share a similar view,
which is there's not a lot coming and I think

(21:22):
the next few years twenty six and twenty seven, we're
not going to see very much coming online, and that's
going to be a real problem for people looking for housing.

Speaker 3 (21:30):
I had Richard Lyle from rescont on my show on
Monday night this week and he said that the taxes
on housing, and I guess he wasn't discerning between rental
versus condos, we're thirty one percent of the cost of building.
And he said that development fees in Toronto had gone
up by a thousand percent in fifteen years.

Speaker 2 (21:52):
Is that true?

Speaker 4 (21:53):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (21:54):
Absolutely, And so you've seen a number of communities like
Toronto and others where they're dcs have gone up by
these eye popping amounts. And you know, I think too well.
I mean, whether it's someone like me who works in
this space or whether it's someone who doesn't, you know,
you just have to say why, like why everything is
more expensive.

Speaker 4 (22:14):
I think we all understand that, but to that degree.

Speaker 5 (22:17):
What has happened that has caused development related infrastructure to
go out by that much?

Speaker 4 (22:23):
And so I think that Richard is right.

Speaker 5 (22:25):
And you know, obviously over the last number of months,
we've started seeing whether it was whether it's Marre del
Duca and Vaughan Mayor Brown.

Speaker 4 (22:34):
I was Maryor Brown asked me to come.

Speaker 5 (22:37):
And meet with his council and staff at a workshop
to talk about a d C by law of DC
reduction by law which the council in Brampton passed within
the last couple of weeks that is going to bring
dcs down.

Speaker 4 (22:52):
For the rest of this term of council.

Speaker 5 (22:53):
So we're starting to see and I think Burlington's done
something similar. So we're starting to see the municipalities recognize
I think what is going on here, which is nothing
is going on, and that government fees and charges are
a big part of the problem.

Speaker 4 (23:06):
And so we're now starting to see auction at the
NIP level.

Speaker 5 (23:09):
That is I applaud that that is very you know,
great for those newis palais who've done that, and we
will see that will souonly make a difference in terms
of trying to get some projects going they couldn't be
couldn't go otherwise.

Speaker 3 (23:21):
See me see many a year ago said that we
need three point five million more homes in southern Ontario
if we're going to get to any level of affordability,
and that was more homes than we'd otherwise want to
build anyway, or would otherwise build, you know, Premier Forward
I think called it one point five or one point
eight million additional homes that we needed to get to

(23:44):
a level of affordability. Building starts are down dramatically, building
permits are down dramatically. People are putting developments on hold
if we don't have government action.

Speaker 2 (23:57):
What's going to.

Speaker 4 (23:58):
Happen if we don't have government?

Speaker 5 (24:00):
Certainly within my membership, I mean, you know, sure some
projects will still happen, Some will still be able to
move forward because you know, they they own the land,
you know, because they are you know, they are able
to make it work. Maybe it's a community where there
are no dcs, like there are certain communities where projects
will still go forward or or they will still have

(24:22):
the potential to go forward, but you know, without you know,
whether it be government intervention, well, I would say government
intervention coupled with things like industrates continue to come down,
and I think, you know, he confidence in the economy,
which I think we would you know, I probably many
people right now are.

Speaker 4 (24:41):
Not very confident about their economic prospects.

Speaker 5 (24:43):
We need people to feel better about their economic situation.
So there are some tangibles and there's some intangibles, but
I think we need a combination of those things to
happen to be able to see projects going forward. And
if we don't, then I think it's going to be
a very you know, a very difficult period for the
next number of years. I'm sure Richard talked to you

(25:04):
about job losses. We're seeing trades being laid off. That's
not good for the economy. We're seeing companies layoff development teams,
people within the organizations who work on new development. So
none of that's good for the economy. So of course
there are all the sort of knock on or you know,
sort of effects when one thing goes you know, goes sideways,

(25:24):
other impacts from that. So none of this is good
for I think our economy and for building.

Speaker 4 (25:31):
The homes that we need.

Speaker 5 (25:32):
As CMHC and Premier Forward and others have talked about
lots of numbers out there, the bottom line is are
all big. It doesn't matter whatever you follow, They're all
big in terms of what the need is. And right
now I have people say to me, come on, rants
are down, vacancies up, problem solved, We're good.

Speaker 4 (25:47):
What's the problem here.

Speaker 5 (25:48):
You need to look out. You need to look out
at what's going to happen. Sure immigration has been is down,
you know, we know the changes, the adjustments are made
in immigration and international students. Presumably that's not going to
be a forever thing, and inevitably we will need more housing.

Speaker 4 (26:05):
We just will.

Speaker 5 (26:06):
So you know, I don't I would say to anyone
who thinks that we're okay now because of some of
these you know, some of these things we're seeing with
respect to rents and vacancies, for example, that's that's not
We're not okay. We will need to continue to build,
and we know it takes many years or projects to
from the the first instance to when they're actually completed.

(26:26):
All that takes time. And I think part of what
got us into this problem in the past was we
didn't have that forward thinking people weren't looking out ahead
far enough to understand what the need was going to be,
and we're too focused on what was in front of us,
and and sort of lulled into a fallse sense of security.
And then we realized that that wasn't where we were
at all, and we don't want to have that happen again.
Not that we're out of anything right now, but I

(26:48):
think we don't want to be in a situation where
we think that we're in a situation that we're really
not in and then it becomes far worse. You know,
five six years from now.

Speaker 3 (26:56):
Sage and stats Can came out with a report, I
think a couple of months ago, maybe six or nine
months ago, saying that the time to get approval for
developments in Canada was the slowest in the western world,
and that Toronto, Mississauga, Victoria, Vancouver were the slowest cities
in Canada, and that there's something about our regulatory system

(27:19):
that just adds reports and red tape and community means
and things like this such that it takes longer to
actually get projects approved than it does to actually build
those projects.

Speaker 2 (27:32):
Do you think that makes any sense.

Speaker 5 (27:36):
I've been doing this kind of work now for a
little over about seven years, and you know, certainly much
of that time whenever people say to me, what's the problem,
what's the issue here about getting red to housing built?
And my answer would always be the same, it would
be time and money. So we've talked about some of
the economic challenges, but time has always.

Speaker 4 (27:56):
Been a big issue, and so you've and you've touched
upon that.

Speaker 5 (27:58):
And so when it takes years to get you know,
through the development approval process to actually be able to
pull the permits, we know that's far too long. I
think we I think most people know or would agree,
that's far too long.

Speaker 4 (28:12):
It shouldn't take years to get through this process. The
number of.

Speaker 5 (28:16):
Background studies that are needed, the amount of commenting bodies
who all want to have a say in what you're approving,
the number of community meetings, all of these things.

Speaker 4 (28:23):
Add add time and time and time.

Speaker 5 (28:25):
And then you have cases where you know, lack of
planning staff, so there's all the someone goes on vacation,
then your file sits in a drawer for four months.

Speaker 4 (28:33):
I mean, these are things that really do happen.

Speaker 5 (28:35):
And of course automation, there's still a lot of you know,
communities that rely on pen and paper, and you know,
the housing is so rare. Fund was supposed to help
with that. That was the suer government brought forward. That
was supposed to help municipalities who received money through that
program to do things like bring in automation, bring in
technology to.

Speaker 4 (28:54):
Help you know, expedite the approval process.

Speaker 5 (28:56):
So you know, we have seen improvements I think over all,
but you've pointed out there are still communities where it
takes too long. And I think Save Toronto reported some
months ago that they were things were a whole lot better.
And I think it was some you know, a planner
who said, well, or someone who's you know, sort of works.
It was someone who's i think former ALTA scroup, someone

(29:20):
who used to work at all this group as a
planner who said, you know, like a lot of those
applications are getting denied, so it might be faster, but
doesn't mean that they're getting approved.

Speaker 4 (29:27):
It just means they're getting through applications more quickly. It
doesn't mean they're nicely getting to yes.

Speaker 5 (29:32):
So you know, you always have to look, I think,
dig a bit deeper into some of these reports to
say what is really going on here.

Speaker 4 (29:38):
I do think we're seeing.

Speaker 5 (29:40):
You know, approvals overall happen more quickly. And of course
now we're in a situation where, you know, even if
you did get approvals happening, and we still need to
make this better. But even if you've got all the
approvals that you needed much more quickly, of course, now
the problem is we can't build, so it is a
bit of a catch twenty two in that sense. But
I think, assuming that it won't always be this tough

(30:01):
to build, we all, I think, want to be in
a place where it's not as difficult economically to make
performance work. That we need an approval process that actually
is more timely and it shouldn't be taking years. It
should be taking I mean, obviously that's a subjective in
terms of what it should be taking, but I don't
think three or four years is an amount of time
that most people would say is reasonable. So there is

(30:23):
still work to do there to get this process happening
more quickly.

Speaker 3 (30:27):
So I don't understand something, and maybe you can help me.
You represent these companies that are building purpose built rental accommodation,
and so you've met, hopefully and know a lot of
these developers in these companies. We need as a society
all this regulation, or at least we think we need
all this regulation. It must be because we don't trust
the developers are going to build something that is high quality, attractive, functional,

(30:51):
et cetera. You know, when you think about the regulation
we have in the pharmaceutical business, you have it because
you want to make sure that the drug works before
safe before such time as you you put it on
the market, which which.

Speaker 2 (31:03):
Which makes sense. And I think that that is understandable.

Speaker 3 (31:07):
But if someone is going to build a building that
is unattractive and of low quality, it's not going to
get rented or sold, one would think. And so why
is it that we need this regulation in the real
estate business. Why isn't the market sort of self correcting
and make sure that developers or our developers just really
on average bad people that will always, you know, produce

(31:29):
bad product unless the regulators make make sure they produce
good product.

Speaker 5 (31:35):
Well, you know, that's the really interesting question that you pose.
I mean, in terms of why do we need government regulation?
And you know.

Speaker 4 (31:44):
I don't.

Speaker 5 (31:45):
I'm not aware of a lot of examples or really
any examples that I can think of. Uh, you know
of an apartment building that costs hundreds of millions of
dollars to build that then at the end of that
we find out that you know, there are you know,
serious issue use you know, structural or you know that
the building is falling down or something. I mean, to

(32:05):
your point, these are big projects, big dollars investors required.
CMHC is involved in many In fact, you know, for us,
you know CMHC, the the Department Construction Loan Program and
the a mL I Select Mortgage Long Insurance Program are
vital programs to get our buildings built. So a lot

(32:26):
of oversight, a lot of eyes. I don't know that
I think that we are. You know, the regulation exists
to ensure that the products that the buildings are built well.
When you go back to look at Ontario nineteen seventies,
I mean the first time that regulation really became a
thing was when the Davis government and choose rent control.

Speaker 4 (32:44):
Why did they do that?

Speaker 5 (32:45):
They did that because obviously there were concerns with affordability
and wanting to sort of address that through rent control.
And so you know, over time we've now obviously had
that for several decades since and I think there are
many you know, you can have a conversation about that
in and of itself, about how the right control system
has been changed and you know, modified, and you know,

(33:07):
I would say it's it's continues to be sort of
tinkered with in order to try to achieve whatever ends
people want it to achieve. But I would say that
there are a lot of issues around that, especially when
you have now a product where government is controlling the
revenue that you can derive from it, but they're not

(33:28):
controlling expenses. But that's a whole other conversation. But that's
really you know, I think so much of what we
can kind of deal with on the development side. Yes,
there's everything in terms of all the site plan and all.

Speaker 4 (33:40):
The studies and and and.

Speaker 5 (33:41):
And urban design and you know, parking minimums and all
things that we know, why are all those things there?
I mean, that's there are many people I guess that
could be asked that question. You know, I think inevitably,
over time, governments, you know, you know, we see governments
sort of expand and and you know in many industry trees,
h you know, regulation might start in one place, and

(34:02):
over time it just gets more and more and more people,
more people want to be involved or have a say
or frankly, constituents you know, talk to you know, elected officials.
And I think that more, you know, more oversight, more
regulation is needed. Frankly, I think there's way too much
of it in this space. And I think that you know,

(34:24):
if there were less, I don't think you would have
any impact on the quality of the buildings. Like, I
don't think that's what this is about.

Speaker 3 (34:30):
Regulators think that they need to provide guidance, if not
not guidance, frankly, rules on the amount of amenity space
per square foot that you've got to have for the
number of units that you're going to build, the number
of bike racks that you're going to have, the number
of EV charges that you're going to have. You know,
I could go on the amount of resilatory requirements that

(34:53):
that developers have. It would assume that they're not very
smart and that they've got to be told by government
regulators what to have. Is that your experience or do
you think the market would tell them how many bike
racks they should have?

Speaker 5 (35:07):
Like if people, I think the market, I think, go ahead, sir, so,
I think the market would tell them.

Speaker 4 (35:14):
I think the market would tell them. I think the
market would tell them. I think it does tell them.

Speaker 5 (35:18):
You know that there's been a big push over the
last many years to reduce or eliminate parking minimums. That's because,
you know, building operators and owners were recognizing in certain
areas people aren't driving as much, so the requirement of
all these parking spaces very expensive to build underground parking,
and so I think that's an example of one where

(35:38):
the market was speaking. It was become becoming very obvious
to owners and developers that that was not something that
was needed, not to the extent that it was being required.
And I've been in buildings as well where you mentioned
bike racks. They're all there, and you know, again this
was one example. Not going to say it's representative every building,
but I've been in buildings where they aren't used all

(36:00):
that much, or there's so much way more.

Speaker 4 (36:02):
Was there than is needed.

Speaker 5 (36:03):
So I think the market would speak to it, and
I think, you know, developers would be responsive to that.
And so much regulation adds cost, additional and additional sort
of you know, time and cost, and ultimately that's born
obviously by the end user of the product. And if
it's not needed, then why do we have to have it.

(36:24):
So I think the market would speak and developers would listen,
and they would modify and adjust accordingly.

Speaker 3 (36:31):
I think it's absurd that that regulators think that they've
got to provide so much regulation for almost every little
aspect of building a building. And I've been involved in
numerous different industries. In my career, I have found more
regulatory influence and regulation in the housing business, which a
lot of people think of as sort of a free willing,

(36:51):
free enterprise kind of a sector, than any other industry
I've been in.

Speaker 2 (36:55):
I've been in the.

Speaker 3 (36:55):
Entertainment business, the pharmaceutical business, the biotech business, the beer business,
you know, the shopping center business, lots of different businesses,
none of them other than maybe the pharmaceutical business, where
I think it's completely appropriate to have that regulatory impact,
have the amount of regulatory discretion, regulation rules, demands. And

(37:15):
one of the most ludicrous ones that was pointed out
to me recently was green building codes in Toronto that
are different than now you've got in the nine of five.

Speaker 2 (37:26):
And you know, one developer told me this is ludicrous.

Speaker 3 (37:28):
So the City of Toronto thinks they're going to solve
climate change south of Steels and not north of Steels
like you know, you just you're not gonna solve climate
change south of Steels like you either got to pass
it everywhere or you know what, admit that it's not
going to have any impact. It's just going to make
housing more expensive. We're going to take a break for
some messages and come back with our guest, Tony Irwin,
president of the Rental Housing Association, in just two minutes.

Speaker 2 (37:50):
Stay with us. Everyone back into.

Speaker 1 (37:56):
No Radio, No Problem stream is live on say nine
to six am dot CN.

Speaker 2 (38:13):
Welcome back everyone to the Brian Cromby Radio. I've got
Tony Rwin.

Speaker 3 (38:15):
He is the President CEO of the Rental Housing Canada Association.

Speaker 2 (38:19):
You're also another organization.

Speaker 3 (38:20):
What's the other organization, sure, the Federation of Rental Housing
or something.

Speaker 4 (38:26):
Viyers of Ontario. So one is provincial and one is federal.
So we do the same kind of work, but obviously
different levels of government.

Speaker 5 (38:33):
And you were talking about government involvement, and of course
every level of government's involved in this industry.

Speaker 4 (38:37):
So it's important that we have a voice everywhere.

Speaker 5 (38:39):
And I just happened to run both the Ontario Association
and the Federal.

Speaker 3 (38:44):
I got to ask you a couple of other policies
that have been talked about and whether you have any
opinion of whether your association is any opinion. One of
the big controversies that took place recently in Toronto was
this regulation on six plexes, and the six plexes were
something that government was trying to get Toronto to pass
such that they get to some of the infrastructure money

(39:04):
is because they thought that that would be good for
housing supply, that small developers would buy up small, small
houses or lots and build a duplex of triplex, a
quadpleques or a six plex on that They wanted to
make it easier for them to do it, and so
they wanted.

Speaker 2 (39:22):
The City of Toronto to pass it.

Speaker 3 (39:24):
As of right, the old former city of Toronto passed it,
but all of the other cities that used to make
up Metropolitan Toronto that are sort of the outer cities
in the in the in the current city.

Speaker 2 (39:36):
Of Toronto did not. Was that a good decision or
a bad decision in your mind?

Speaker 5 (39:41):
I think it's a bad decision. I mean, we need
we need options. We need you know, whether you know,
whether a lot of it gets built or not, a
lot of it gets built. At this point, we need
housing to be built. And so I think we need
people to say yes to building housing and yes to
building rental housing. And you know, I within my association

(40:02):
because I'm I'm you know, my members are more you know,
larger and sort of medium sized reads and pension funds
and corporations. They're not necessarily to be building six plexes.
But you know, there are developers out there who would
do that, and I think we need that, so I
support it. I think it's something that should be supported.
And you know, do I think it's going to happen
in every corner?

Speaker 4 (40:22):
No?

Speaker 5 (40:22):
I don't think it would. But why wouldn't we want
to make it easier for somebody who wants to build.
I mean, I think we know why, But you know,
I'm asking the question, you know, I think we should
be supporting.

Speaker 4 (40:35):
That as of right. We're not talking about a forty
story tower as.

Speaker 5 (40:39):
Of right, although I have opinions on that too, But
in this case, I think it's something that should have
been supported.

Speaker 4 (40:44):
I think it was it was not a good decision
to not say.

Speaker 3 (40:47):
The criticism or the con was that it would change
the fabric of our suburban neighborhoods, and that that we
don't want rooming houses in our in our suburbs. We
don't have these big monster homes with a whole bunch
of undesirable people living in rooming houses in our neighborhoods.
The opposite point of view was, no, they're not gonna
be built everywhere. They're going to be built probably on

(41:09):
major arterials, probably close to transit stations, and more than
likely no one's gonna be able to buy an expensive
single family dwell and it's going to be the old,
older facilities that are going to be cost effective to
buy to then take down and build into to something
that's a try quad or six plux.

Speaker 2 (41:27):
Where do you come out on that?

Speaker 5 (41:29):
That's my view, I might view as the latter one
hundred percent what you said at the end, that's exactly
what I think would happen.

Speaker 4 (41:33):
There are lots of areas, whether they're underutilized like.

Speaker 5 (41:37):
Gold Strip malls, or there's all kinds of different places
where you could potentially do that. It's not going to
happen everywhere, So I agree with your with your ladder characterization.
It's and that's why I think it's something that should
be supported. We're not going to see it happening on
every street and it's not. That's just not that that's
an alarmist point of view. I don't think that would happen.
So I agree with your sort of you know, your

(41:59):
the character characterization of it being in certain places sort
of transit in your transit areas, certain lots where frankly
they're being underutilized right now. I think it makes sense
to do it there, and that's what I would expect.

Speaker 3 (42:12):
What happened the Province of Ontario in the City of
Toronto about a month ago, came out with an announcement
that they're going to actually pass sometime in October the
Major Transit Station Area Districts, which are areas around all
the major transit stations for the Go train and for
the for the subway, and for the Ontario Line and for.

Speaker 2 (42:30):
The LRT, et cetera.

Speaker 3 (42:31):
But they didn't go very far. They didn't do sort
of as of right density. If an area we even
within that transit station area was was zone neighborhood, they
were still going to be zone neighborhoods. You would still
have to go back and apply if you wanted to
change it to mixed use. So what do you think
about this major strandit MTSA Major Transit Station Area initiative.

Speaker 2 (42:53):
Is it the right initiative?

Speaker 3 (42:54):
Did they go far enough or not far enough?

Speaker 2 (42:56):
What's your sense of that.

Speaker 4 (42:58):
I think it's good.

Speaker 5 (42:58):
I think it's a good you know, we're making progress
on it, But I'd like to see them go further.
I mean, I think we really need to be uh
you know, embracing more density in in in these in
these zones, in these nodes, like we we just need
to get on with saying look, this is we're a
world class city. We need to provide housing for people.
There are certain places and spaces where it absolutely makes

(43:19):
sense to and and and you know in these ntsas
to me, is exactly where it should be. H you know,
so I think there do need to be I think
what we're seeing it's certainly progress in the right direction,
but i'd like to see I'd like to see it
go further.

Speaker 4 (43:34):
I'd like to see there.

Speaker 5 (43:35):
Be more uh you know, more ability to build more density.
I mean, you know it's it's this is not gonna
this is going to take time to evolve, I'm sure,
and just.

Speaker 4 (43:46):
As development does.

Speaker 5 (43:48):
But I think we need to be more supportive and
need to go further than what's been said so far.

Speaker 3 (43:53):
Montreal has solved some of their housing problem because they
made it easier to convert employment industrial lands and to
rental uh and uh and.

Speaker 2 (44:01):
Or residential lands.

Speaker 3 (44:03):
And what they did is they increase the density from
one time's coverage to nine times coverage. Uh for former
industrial lands.

Speaker 4 (44:11):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (44:12):
And what what's happened is, you know, obviously with the
the industries are no longer economically viable, people have come
in and bought what some people call the gray zone,
so it's not the green green zone, it's the gray zone.
Have bought it up and have have built built residential
condomiums and some of them along you know, the old

(44:33):
Machine Canal, and it's really quite quite attractive. Toronto's got
an opposite strategy, and the opposite strategy is that we
want the employment lands to exist, and so therefore we're
not going to allow you to convert employment lands that
to residential.

Speaker 2 (44:45):
We're going to make it very difficult to do so.
And uh.

Speaker 3 (44:48):
You know, some people think that's good because that means
there's going to be industry in Toronto and jobs in Toronto.
Other people say, well, no, that's that's that's dumb, because
if you can convert that land into two residential that
would make a ton more sense. And people are only
going to want that if there are jobs somewhere, and
the amount of industrial jobs have gone down dramatically, So
where should we be making it easier to convert former

(45:09):
industrial lands to residential lands. Or is the current the
current policy that restricts it and says it has to
stay employment lands the right strategy.

Speaker 4 (45:21):
No, we need to make it easier.

Speaker 5 (45:22):
We've been long advocating for government to make it easier
to convert these under use employment lands. The idea that
industry is going to come back to some of these lands,
I think we've seen enough, enough time has passed to
know it's not going to happen.

Speaker 4 (45:36):
We need housing.

Speaker 5 (45:37):
We need to unlock more land for housing, and certainly
to me underutilized employment lands that are sitting not doing anything.
We absolutely need to make it easier to convert those
lands to housing, full stop.

Speaker 2 (45:51):
Tell me what you think about the green Belt.

Speaker 3 (45:52):
Some people think the green Belt is christining agricultural land
conservation land, and we need it for our environment, for
our nature, for to protect farm lands, conservation lands, et cetera.
Other people have said, no, parts of the green Belt
are are our infrastructure ready, already serviced and should be developed.
And if we create this moat around Toronto, we're forcing

(46:16):
all of our kids, if they want single family homes,
to move to the other side of the green Belt
too far away from jobs and or they're going to
move to Cowdery.

Speaker 2 (46:24):
What do you think of that?

Speaker 5 (46:26):
Well, I mean, you know, when the green Belt sort
of issue was going on, you know, it wasn't something
that my members were you know, involved building you know,
rental housing on it. So I was quite happy to
kind of stay in my lane. But I mean, I
think the truth matter is we do need to look
at urban boundaries. We do need to look at and

(46:48):
we've seen this conversation happen, whether it was Hamilton or
you know elsewhere. I think we have to look at
urban boundaries and sort of have discussions around, you know,
whether we need to extend them.

Speaker 4 (46:59):
How do we do that. I know that's not green.

Speaker 5 (47:01):
Belt necessarily, but I do think we have to, you know,
look at you know, we if we agree or if
we think it's important to you know, prioritize the building
of more housing. It is obviously a you know, a
big conversation with many different points of view.

Speaker 4 (47:18):
About how we go about achieving that.

Speaker 5 (47:20):
And I certainly think that there is room for more
density in in urban cores, more density along transit lines,
more density along major arteries and thoroughfares.

Speaker 4 (47:28):
All of that.

Speaker 5 (47:29):
But you know, is that is that why are we
just going to focus on that? Well, no, I don't
think that's the answer. I think that's part of the answer.
But where else are we should we be looking at
building housing? And so to me, the green belt is
something that you know, is probably not one not something
that anyone politically is going to want to reopen anytime soon.
So probably that's, you know, something that's going to be

(47:51):
just left alone for a while. But I think that
doesn't mean that we shouldn't be having conversations around where
else do we know do we think.

Speaker 4 (47:59):
We need to build housing?

Speaker 5 (48:00):
And I don't think you can't You can't freeze sort
of communities in time and say we're not going to
go any further than what's already been approved. Yes, they're
difficult conversations. Yes, their sensitivities that have to be sort
of taken into account. But if we are growing, which
I think we are and we'll continue to, then we
have to have honest and I think, you know, open

(48:20):
conversations around where we're going to you know, achieve brain.

Speaker 4 (48:25):
The housing that's needed. And that means I think looking.

Speaker 5 (48:27):
At some areas where right now it's not happening, and
we have to say, how can we make how can
that make sense? You know, how can we do it?
How can we service the lands?

Speaker 4 (48:36):
Can that be done? Does it make sense?

Speaker 5 (48:38):
And I think that's what we need to be looking
at and saying what can that look like in different
parts of the province where we think it makes sense.
So that's why I would say.

Speaker 3 (48:47):
One of the segments of the development industry that exists
in the United States that doesn't really exist in Canada
is rental single family homes. And you've got these institutional
owners developers that will build a whole subdivision and of
single family homes and rented out guardstell apartments, townhouse developments
and like, and it doesn't really exist, or it doesn't

(49:10):
exist to a large extent in Canada. And numerous politicians
have complained and said, we don't want institutions buying a
whole bunch of single family homes, et cetera. What do
you think is that the right attitude or a wrong attitude.

Speaker 2 (49:23):
Would we be better.

Speaker 3 (49:24):
Off if we had institutions and developers coming in and
building subdivisions and renting them out rather than selling them off,
or or would be worse off.

Speaker 4 (49:31):
You know, we do have some examples of that. I
do know of some developers.

Speaker 5 (49:36):
I can think of an example in Saskatchewan where they
you know, bought some land and they built Now they
made them two units within within a home, but they
were you know.

Speaker 4 (49:44):
All detached houses. Made them to units.

Speaker 5 (49:47):
And they're all rentals, and they were you know, the
uptake was immediate, and you know, they had them all
rented very fast. Because people like the idea of living
in a home it's like a single family home with
you know, one and all of that. They like that
as opposed to living in you know, midriz or you know,
or a plex or higher rise or whatever the case
may be. So that was a very popular option, and

(50:10):
they're looking at doing more of that. But you're right,
it's not something that we have a lot of. So
there's that scenario, or there's this scenario, as you said,
where you know, certainly in the United States, where you
see company coming in and buying up single family homes
and renting them out. So you know, those are two
different examples, I guess from my point of view. You know,
we I think the example of building housing, building new

(50:33):
housing and renting it out like the example I was describing,
I think that's great. I think that's another option. There
are people who obviously like that kind of housing option.
It's something they can afford, but it is a home
as opposed to you know, other forms of rental accommodation.

Speaker 4 (50:47):
I think that's good. I think we should be encouraging
more of that.

Speaker 5 (50:50):
As for the other, I mean, you know, that's a
more difficult conversation. I think, because you know, we we do.
You know, we do need homes that people can afford
to rent. You know, it's not about picking one versus
the other. It's about people having choice where they want
to live in a budget that they can afford and
in with within in a community or or that provides

(51:14):
sort of a community that they're looking to have. And
so whether that's someone who is developer that's building these
kinds of accommodations and then renting them, whether it's someone
who is you know, buying homes and renting them out.
I mean, you know, I'm not the second example. I
don't know that I really have an opinion on that.
I think what to me, what's most important is having

(51:36):
options for people that work for them. And I think
being able to have different kinds of housing options is
really what's most important. And you know you talked about
earlier condominiums and versus rental and you know, family sizes
and all that. One of the big you know, I
hear this from housing advocates is that in fact, you know,

(51:58):
condos or apartments are not suited for families. So that's
something that you're talking earlier about, having Agent roc On
talking about that. That is something that we also need
to be addressing, whether it's through whether it's whether it's
in new apartment buildings or in other types of rental combination.
But there are more suited to families because frankly, that's
I think really what is needed going forward, and there's

(52:21):
not enough of that available today.

Speaker 3 (52:24):
I think we have as a society, for some reason,
this negative bias against rental or renters and positive toward
home ownership. And for some reason we think homeowners, you know,
take care of their homes better than renters or something
like this. I don't know if that's true, and I
certainly don't think it's true. It'd be interested if there's
studies in that regard.

Speaker 2 (52:44):
But the counter to.

Speaker 3 (52:45):
That in Europe and the United States and elsewhere is
that people that rent are more mobile and so therefore
adjust to changes in the economy, changes in job opportunities, etc.
More readily, and that's better for the economy, and so
that there's pros and times to both strategies, and I
think you're right that we just need more options and
to have all the incentives for one and restrictions against

(53:08):
the other.

Speaker 2 (53:09):
Makes no sense.

Speaker 3 (53:10):
Tony Irwin, thank you very much, President and CEO of
Rental Housing Canada for joining us today. It's been an
interesting conversation and I think it's one that we really
got to have because I think we do have a
housing crisis, and I think we've sort of masked this
housing crisis over the last couple of years by this
incredible boom in pre construction condos that I think is
over now, and what it's led to is a huge

(53:31):
plethora of these condos being rented out, which isn't really
the solution for the rental sector of our society that
we need to have. And I think that rental sector,
which isn't going to be all of the housing, but
it's going to be a certain portion of the housing,
should be purposefult rental, which is the people that are
part of your association. So thank you so much for
joining us and chatting with some of these issues.

Speaker 4 (53:51):
My pleasure. Thanks very much being great conversation.

Speaker 2 (53:53):
That's our shure for tonight, everybody, thank you for joining.

Speaker 3 (53:55):
I remind you I'm on every Monday through Friday at
six o'clock on nine to sixty am. You can stream
online at TRIPLEW SAGA nine sixty am dot CA. On
my podcasts and videos go up on my website Briancromby
dot com, on my YouTube channel, and on podcast servers
and on social media as soon as the radio show
goes to air.

Speaker 2 (54:12):
Thanks everybody, good.

Speaker 1 (54:13):
Thanks stream us live at SAGA nine sixty am dot ca.