1897 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

My sandwich artists seem to do quite well! They both own homes here in Victoria.

Their staff are mostly young student types.

See, a lot of low income workers are students, part timers where a spouse or partner has a job that pays higher etc. If you are single, into your 30’s or 49’s and still making a poor salary, surely you’ve done something wrong. God forbid if you have a kid or two as well.

[sebberry]

^Good thing I don't plan on having any kids then

 

A typical Subway can cost upwards of 1/2 Mil, so I'd hope the franchisee owns a home.

[spanky123]

I don't think aastra is complaining about condos being built to the detriment of the rental stock, but pointing out the paltry amount of purpose-built rentals. We aren't building anywhere enough condos to make them remotely viable as a solution, anyhow, since condo prices have also skyrocketed.

 

That is what I was saying. This isn't about blaming prior councils for not allowing development, it is about developers deciding that building rental stock wasn't as profitable as building condos for snowbirds. We debated this very point 7-8+ years ago on VV and predicted this outcome.

 

The only reason why you are seeing rentals now is because the economic tide shifted, rental rates have shot up, and interest rates remain low. What we are seeing with all of the new taxes and restrictions being added is some sober second thought by developers who are rethinking their positions.

Edited by spanky123, 10 May 2018 - 06:43 AM.

[Mike K.]

Developers wanted to build rentals. There was plenty of demand then as the there is now. The only roadblock was councils were unwilling to support the densities required to make the projects viable.

Victoria has had a perennial 0.5-2% vacancy rate for two decades. The rental industry even publicly approached local governments to plead their case, but to no avail. Too dense, too tall, too wrong in every way. That was the narrative.

There was even one fellow who said he wanted to build two towers as a legacy to the city, that he wouldn’t see a return for many years but that he was alright with it. Nope. Too tall, too dense, James Bay residents have been overburdened, etc.

[VicHockeyFan]

Developers wanted to build rentals. There was plenty of demand then as the there is now. The only roadblock was councils were unwilling to support the densities required to make the projects viable.

tc.

That’s right. Rental has always been viable and makes good economic sense if councils would have allowed density.

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

Oh there is lots of affordable housing outside Victoria, but Victoria is apparently where the "crisis" is, and where all the low income folks want to live. 

 

Actually, if you check out the link I shared yesterday, there's not a region in the entire province of BC that is affordable for the lowest quartile of income earners (in the capital region, that's $0 to $23,536 annually). For the second lowest quartile ($23,536 to $44,456 annually), you have to go all the way to the Port McNeill area to find affordable housing. Do you think your baristas should be flying in from Saskatchewan each morning?

[VicHockeyFan]

Some people earn little money on purpose.   They choose to work part-time, or simple jobs.  Don't forget that.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 10 May 2018 - 08:27 AM.

[Mike K.]

With every so-called government solution to the housing issue society pays a higher cost back to the government through taxes, fees and lost income opportunity.

 

There's only one taxpayer and that taxpayer has been maxed out. Things are going to get real, real tough given that our systems of governance are addicted to easy money from the taxpayer, which happens to be the same taxpayer government is so concerned over.

 

What's really happening is we're giving $1 to the government but getting $0.80 back* in services/assistance/program/solutions. That's unsustainable.

 

*usual

[tjv]

Actually, if you check out the link I shared yesterday, there's not a region in the entire province of BC that is affordable for the lowest quartile of income earners (in the capital region, that's $0 to $23,536 annually). For the second lowest quartile ($23,536 to $44,456 annually), you have to go all the way to the Port McNeill area to find affordable housing. Do you think your baristas should be flying in from Saskatchewan each morning?

Someone who makes 44k a year can't afford to live here?  By my quick numbers thats 3k per month after deductions.  you can get a decent place for say 1300 per month which leaves 1700 for food, etc which is plenty of money in my opinion?

 

Ok, you make less than that, do what the rest of us did when we were poor and starting out - GET A ROOMMATE!

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

Someone who makes 44k a year can't afford to live here?  By my quick numbers thats 3k per month after deductions.  you can get a decent place for say 1300 per month which leaves 1700 for food, etc which is plenty of money in my opinion?

 

Ok, you make less than that, do what the rest of us did when we were poor and starting out - GET A ROOMMATE!

 

The site very specifically uses 30% of income (for rent plus heating) as a benchmark for affordability. A person in that quartile (average income of $33,565) would have to spend, on average:

 

28% of their income for a bachelor/studio

32% of their income for a 1-bedroom

38% of their income for a 2-bedroom

46% of their income for a 3-bedroom

51% of their income for a 4-bedroom

 

And that's for the entire capital region, not just for Victoria proper.

[aastra]

 

That is what I was saying. This isn't about blaming prior councils for not allowing development, it is about developers deciding that building rental stock wasn't as profitable as building condos for snowbirds.

 

Q:
Why didn't the city do anything whatsoever to encourage/incentivize new rentals?

 

A:

Because Butterfield was building Shoal Point and Concert was building Astoria and Belvedere.

 

Huh? Does not compute. It's like asking a child why he broke the living room lamp and he says it's because his sister was skipping rope outside.

 

We don't need to speculate about it. There actually were some large rental proposals (and re-proposals) in the early 2000s that ran into hard resistance from all corners. It's ultimately irrelevant that some condo developer also built a condo building on another site a dozen blocks away, or that Mike K. went on yet another glamorous vacation, or that aastra made yet another hilarious play on words, etc.

 

I'm not political so I'm always trying to see the reality beneath the narratives. If you want new rentals and if you need new rentals then you should encourage/incentivize and allow new rentals. You shouldn't develop a program to encourage/incentivize tent cities, you shouldn't launch an ad campaign to try to change the way people think about new rentals, you shouldn't set up a new tax to ding anyone who asks why there are no new rentals. These are political misdirections. Stay focused.

 

Lurkers might think we're exaggerating when we talk about how long this local rental crisis has been running in its various forms. Just check the old news items. If the crisis has been going on for that long and if no new rentals were built for almost 20 years and if any new rentals that were proposed have tended to hit a proverbial brick wall then there's no way to sugarcoat it... the authorities seem to have a fetish for proclaiming the severity of the rental crisis and yet in the 21st century they haven't done anything to try to manage it or mitigate it.

 

And when we make the point about the hundreds of craptastic 1960s & 1970s apartment blocks that are coming due for replacement, we're exposing how the authorities still (STILL!) aren't looking forward! In other words, the ball hasn't merely been dropped for the past 20 years or so. The ball is in the process of being dropped for the next 20 years or so, too. Unless something changes in a hurry.

Edited by aastra, 10 May 2018 - 09:17 AM.

[lanforod]

The site very specifically uses 30% of income (for rent plus heating) as a benchmark for affordability. A person in that quartile (average income of $33,565) would have to spend, on average:

 

28% of their income for a bachelor/studio

32% of their income for a 1-bedroom

38% of their income for a 2-bedroom

46% of their income for a 3-bedroom

51% of their income for a 4-bedroom

 

And that's for the entire capital region, not just for Victoria proper.

 

Perhaps the issue is that the benchmark of 30% isn't realistic here?

[aastra]

It's especially frustrating because anyone can look at aerial pictures and see just how much sheer empty space is ready and waiting in the form of the large surface parking lots attached to countless old rental buildings, big and small. This is what those early 2000s Quadra Pacific projects were trying to take advantage of. It's the space that Victorians should be taking advantage of, eagerly. No need to gut neighbourhoods by tearing down houses. Just build more rentals where rentals already exist. Put the parking underground. You'll be left with the same familiar neighbourhoods, the same familiar everything, but with a few percentage points more rental units. And the ugly parking lots will be gone and replaced with (hopefully) decent new buildings, which is another plus.

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

Perhaps the issue is that the benchmark of 30% isn't realistic here?

 

The more you require your low income workers to pay in rent, the fewer opportunities they have for social mobility. If you don't have money leftover after rent, groceries, transportation, childcare and other necessities, you don't have money to upgrade your education or save to buy your own home.

[tjv]

^then get a roommate.  Who says you can't rent a 3 bedroom with 2 other roommates?

 

^compare that to say NYC, do you think people who make 44k have the right to love close to work downtown, 30% of salary max for housing, etc, etc.  No low income people commute hours each way.

 

who came up with this 30% thing?  as an alternate what do you the banks say should be your max mortgage cost as a percentage of salary?  Its a hell of a lot higher than 30%

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

^then get a roommate.  Who says you can't rent a 3 bedroom with 2 other roommates?

 

^compare that to say NYC, do you think people who make 44k have the right to love close to work downtown, 30% of salary max for housing, etc, etc.  No low income people commute hours each way.

 

who came up with this 30% thing?  as an alternate what do you the banks say should be your max mortgage cost as a percentage of salary?  Its a hell of a lot higher than 30%

 

1) Roommates aren't suitable for everyone. (E.g.: parents with young kids, people with severe anxiety, etc.)

2)Yes, I think people should have the right to live in the community they work in.

3) 30% was chosen by the folks who run the site I linked to, the Canadian Rental Housing Index. In fact, CHMC says your housing (mortgage principal and interest, taxes, heating costs, and strata fees) should be 32% of your gross monthly income. So, I wouldn't say "a hell of a lot higher than 30%". And for comparison purposes, the highest quartile of workers in the capital region ($73,573+, average of $113,253) only need to spend between 11% to 19% of their income to afford rent in the region.

[tjv]

you might want to consider moving somewhere back east then.  All of those things can be had in Canada

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

Good luck having a functioning city without your lower income workers.

[VicHockeyFan]

Lake Tahoe, Palm Springs. Miami Beach, Manhattan all seem to do fine.

[spanky123]

Good luck having a functioning city without your lower income workers.

 

Sorry but as the point has been made many times, when comparing the downtown cores of most cities in the world, Victoria rental rates are still far below average. The difference is that most people in others cities don't have the same expectations as tenants seem to have here.

 

It appears as though the feds are going to spend their share of $90M to fund 1,000 affordable units in Victoria. Will last 6 months as a raft of new homeless people move here to occupy the shelter rate units. The headline says that we will end homelessness with the move though!

 

http://www.timescolo...-crd-1.23298248

Edited by spanky123, 10 May 2018 - 12:39 PM.