Canadian Money Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,086 Posts
It may depend on your province. Ontario's press release says:

If a property owner does not have a mortgage secured by a commercial rental property, the property owner should contact CMHC to discuss program options, which may include applying funds against other forms of debt facilities or fixed cost payment obligations (e.g. utilities).
Note it also says:
The forgivable loan would be conditional on the property owner and tenant entering into a rent forgiveness agreement (including a moratorium on eviction for three-months) pursuant to which the property owner would reduce the tenant's monthly rent to 25 per cent of rent that relates to fixed costs for three months. The property owner would be responsible for the remaining 25 per cent. For certainty, government funding, and remaining monthly tenant rent payment obligations (i.e. 25 per cent), would not cover the property owner's profits derived from rental income - that is, in applying for this program, the property owner agrees to forego profit for a three-month period.
So if you don't have a mortgage, I feel it's not worthwhile to apply, because you would only end up with 75% of your fixed costs, which is probably similar to what you might get if you just reduced your tenant's rent to 25% of their current rent. This is my situation and I'm not planning to apply. I have reduced my tenant's rent to the level of property tax only until they are able to re-open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,801 Posts
This does not seem like a worthy use of taxpayer money, IMO (Neither is all the central bank bond buying, BTW)

Surviving the few months of closed businesses will not be the problem for overextended commercial landlords. The rent permanently dropping by 50% because tenants are all running in the red for the next 2+ years, is the problem.

Same with residential landlords, just less pronounced (people will still be making some income, while small businesses will have zero profits).

Losses and bankruptcies concentrated in the few commercial owners who can't endure seems like the proper place for the the pain to occur. It will hardly affect the middle class other than a few property maintenance jobs. Not worth millions of taxpayers coughing up more dough for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
This does not seem like a worthy use of taxpayer money, IMO (Neither is all the central bank bond buying, BTW)

Surviving the few months of closed businesses will not be the problem for overextended commercial landlords. The rent permanently dropping by 50% because tenants are all running in the red for the next 2+ years, is the problem.

Same with residential landlords, just less pronounced (people will still be making some income, while small businesses will have zero profits).

Losses and bankruptcies concentrated in the few commercial owners who can't endure seems like the proper place for the the pain to occur. It will hardly affect the middle class other than a few property maintenance jobs. Not worth millions of taxpayers coughing up more dough for.
I'd hope they look into it a bit further.
I don't want a widespread economic collapse, but I'd really like it if the brunt of the problem was paid for by those who caused it.

I think the biggest thing is that the vast majority of Canadians were spending themselves into insolvency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,801 Posts
^ People may be unwise with making the decision not to save money, but nobody is spending themselves into insolvency willingly. People are poor from lack of access to as much work as they would like to work, and the things they buy cost twice as much as they should. These are both government's fault for cowering to big business interests that prevent small business from competing and thriving. There is also severe advertisement brainwashing science at play that is highly dangerous and damaging to consumers which should be banned. More dangerous than hard drugs.

Large businesses spend 10-20 years siphoning off profits to the ownership class, trillions of dollars. And then when there is an economic crisis the money suddenly isn't there and and the successful company is somehow broke. Instead of demanding that the owners take a hit and provide cash or dilute their shares to raise capital, companies instead cry that "oh no we'll have to layoff all the workers, government please come help us or where will we ever get the money to keep these people's jobs?"

It's all set up this way, that's the whole point. Rinse the government/taxpayer every decade or two and prop up the already rich people's wealth with the money everyone else would be using to buy groceries.

We're in another rinsing period now, and at the end of it the owners and government will expect that we thank them for their brave interventions that saved middle class jobs. lol.

This commercial rent assistance is borderline. Not direct stimulus to the people, but not a big corporate bail out either. I think it's about where we'd draw the line. The $5000/month to keep the owner afloat and employ 2 people is taking away grocery money from 20 people. That's not a very good deal, but still a better than the deal than buying bonds to keep 0.1 people employed and take away 20 people's grocery money.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top