Rent-striking the REIT: Reflections on tenant organizing against financialized rental housing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2018, a group of tenants from four high-rise apartment buildings in East Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, launched a seven-month rent strike against their landlord, a real estate investment trust (REIT). The tenants protested a proposed steep rent increase and demanded long-standing repairs to their apartments. While some repairs were done, and the strike involved other successful moments, the rent increase was not fought off. Written from the perspective of the Hamilton Tenants Solidarity Network (HTSN), the group that helped organizing the rent strike, this article has two aims. First, we analyse the strategy and tactics of the REIT in the context of deindustrialization and financialization in Hamilton. We break up this financialized landlord’s ‘repositioning’ strategy into five predatory tactics: cutting, squeezing, greening, rent increasing, and bullying and bribing. Second, we reflect on the experiences, successes, and failures of HTSN. Our successes include organizing tenants and training tenants as organizers; having well-executed legal, fundraising, and media strategies; making social events and political actions integral to the strike; and relying on and forging further ties with comrades and supporters. Our challenges and failures concern all the tenants we didn’t manage to involve or involve in an active way; divergent tenant strategies; relationships between tenants and organizers and within HTSN; and underestimating the stakes of going up against a REIT. We conclude by reflecting on the potential for collective organizing in the face of financialized landlords today.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".