295 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

I am sure there are people with no mortgage that still have renters in their house. What would you suggest their issue is?

[D.L.]

This "unaffordable housing" idea is a catch-22. If housing is supposidly so unaffordable, then how is everyone able to afford to live here?

[piltdownman]

There is going to be legislation very soon. Flaherty just announced a few days ago new rules for lenders in this very instance, as well as other restrictions requiring a larger down payment etc.

The new rules came in today. Only 50% of gross rent is added to the borrower’s income. . It also sounds like it only counts if it's in your federal taxes. Sounds like this will have a massive hit here in Victoria.

[sebberry]

I am sure there are people with no mortgage that still have renters in their house. What would you suggest their issue is?

Retired?

[sebberry]

The new rules came in today. Only 50% of gross rent is added to the borrower’s income. . It also sounds like it only counts if it's in your federal taxes. Sounds like this will have a massive hit here in Victoria.

I wonder how many people who buy condos as rental investment properties will be affected by this.

[G-Man]

Well at TD they were pretty unwilling to consider it at all previously. Not sure about other banks. I personally wouldn't want a renter in my house but think that if people want to have them they should be allowed and certainly from an afforable housing perspective they are required.

[Bob Fugger]

I wonder how many people who buy condos as rental investment properties will be affected by this.

Ummm, all of them? The new rules are more advantageous, ifyou're not an owner/occupier? If you read further down that page, it states:


For non-owner occupied rental properties:

• 100% of net rental income is added to the borrower’s gross income
• The mortgage payment, property taxes, and heat are excluded from TDS calculations.

Currently, lenders use their own discretion as to how much rental income you can use for an investment rental property (e.g., b/w 50-100%). Also, given how ridiculous property taxes are here, it will be nice to not have to include them in TDS. Mind you, if you're a serious real estate investor then TDS doesn't come into play.

[Ginger Snap]

Ummm, all of them? The new rules are more advantageous, ifyou're not an owner/occupier? If you read further down that page, it states:


For non-owner occupied rental properties:

• 100% of net rental income is added to the borrower’s gross income
• The mortgage payment, property taxes, and heat are excluded from TDS calculations.

Currently, lenders use their own discretion as to how much rental income you can use for an investment rental property (e.g., b/w 50-100%). Also, given how ridiculous property taxes are here, it will be nice to not have to include them in TDS. Mind you, if you're a serious real estate investor then TDS doesn't come into play.

Yes, but I believe they are also now required to put down 20% as non owner-occupied, or rental, properties. So while they can use the rent to qualify, they have to put way more as a down payment.

[LJ]

I was visiting Quebec City and the people I spoke with on the block all felt that way. Some of the people were concerned if they needed a stranger living with them to pay their mortgage, could they afford the maintenance, additional cars in the driveway and on the street.

If they needed a renter to help them pay the mortgage in QC they would indeed be poor, the average house price is $236,000.

Ask them to move out here and try to find comparable housing and they will likely change their tune very quickly.

[concorde]

If they needed a renter to help them pay the mortgage in QC they would indeed be poor, the average house price is $236,000.

Ask them to move out here and try to find comparable housing and they will likely change their tune very quickly.

I did tell them what a house was worth in Victoria and their mouths dropped. But it is interesting, only 10 years ago the average house price was about 236K here and there were probably the same number of rental suites then as there is now, but that is a guess.

I've tried to lure people here from other parts of the country and as soon as they discover how expensive it is to live here compared to the salaries, most times its the end of the conversation.

[Barra]

I would argue that students do care about legal and illegal suites. In fact about a week ago some friends of mine and the SU external met with the city to discuss their new secondary suites bylaws. Since then they have formed a pilot project with the city around a different model for the university-banff trail area.

What is an "SU external"? Where is the "university-banff trail area"???

[Layne French]

What is an "SU external"? Where is the "university-banff trail area"???

My apologies, as some of you know I moved from Victoria to Calgary to complete my Bachelor of Arts in Urban Studies. To answer your question more specifically Pieta, The SU external references a member of the Student Union at the University of Calgary that works with "external" members of society on issues that effect the student population. In this case the SU external is working with member of council, along with members of the UrbanCSA. The area they are working with is a single family suburb on the edge of campus called Banff Trail or sometimes referenced as University area.

Cheers
Layne

[Sparky]

^ The Times Colonist web must be down tonight, but it is my understanding that Saanich council voted last night to recognize secondary suites.

The part that confuses me is that apparently this is only applicable south of McKenzie.

Is this just me or is that screwed up? Why only part of a municipality?

[Rob Randall]

Saanich council gave final reading last night to a bylaw allowing secondary suites in a designated portion of the region's largest municipality.

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz0za848xDN

Why only part of a municipality?

It may be a test, like Victoria did with Gonzales.

[RobinKimpton]

Robin Kimpton
on
Affordable Housing

As we all know, Victoria has a limited land base being surrounded by water and other municipalities. It therefore goes without saying that we must increase density to accommodate any increase in population.


The two major components cost of housing is the cost of land and the cost of construction.


With a limited land base, the cost of land has always kept the cost of housing in Victoria as one of the most expensive in the country. At the same time, Victoria's economy is service based, now largely tourism based, with entry level or lower income level jobs.


The City has focused that density increase over the last 10 years in Vic West and the Downtown core including James Bay. There is and has been in certain circumstances a significant backlash to these densities and there impact on transportation, congestion, views and the general ambience of the neighbourhood.


Where do we go from here in order to accommodate the increasing population which is inevitable in the face of the maturing boomer generation. (We still are the mildest and sunniest City in Canada). How may we move forward with affordable character based architecture and housing?


If elected, I would advocate for the “in fill” developments and stratification of our existing housing. What am I talking about?


Much of the housing in the older districts of Victoria are, at least, 100 years old built on rubble foundations of lath and plaster frame construction. In the meantime, the family unit and life styles have changed considerably in that 100 year period. The large family unit is largely and thing of the past. Young people today do not remember wash boards, wringer washing machines, dial phones on the wall or cabinet T. V.s. At the same time, some us who are long in the tooth, now struggle with how to answer the phone. The family unit is smaller, the pace of life is infinitely faster and compact.


I am suggesting we look at these old homes in a different way. I am suggesting that we take them and through our zoning procedures revitalize them. We permit these large grand houses with tasteful character architecture to be renovated into strata titled units of modern design. The stratification or in fill process proportions the land base from the single family designation into 2, 3 or 4 units, thereby proportioning the cost of the land by one half, one third or one quarter as the case maybe.


I have experienced this process in Vancouver and for the most part the architecture is not only retained but enhanced. In addition, to the enhanced architecture, the neighbourhood, particularly in a lower cost neighbourhood is improved and gentrified. This technique of densification and gentrification has spread throughout Vancouver neighbourhoods over the last 30 years. In many, many instances, you can not tell the renovated / rejuvenated project from the original house.


There is a punch for those in ownership of these properties because along with this zoning will go a increase in land values but the beauty is that the per unit land value goes down.


As a closing note, around 60% of Victoria housing is rental accommodation and yet we still have a historically tight rental market. I would entertain discussion as to whether or not as part of this zoning would require these stratified properties should be restrained into the rental market for a period of time. This would have to be determined by you the citizen as well as the market place.

[Bob Fugger]

Is cross posting in different threads OK now? It's not the first time, either. Mods?

[JohnN]

Kitchen fire re-ignites controversy over region's illegal secondary suites

Derek Spalding
Times Colonist
January 24, 2012

View Royal fire Chief Paul Hurst says a Sunday evening house fire highlights the dangers of living in illegal secondary suites that do not meet safety standards and conform to building codes.

A mother and her young daughter were lucky to escape without injuries after a kitchen fire quickly lit up their second-floor suite at 231 Helmcken Rd. around 6: 30 p.m.

The blaze started when a pot of grease caught fire and the mother, who asked not to be identified, moved the pot to the sink and added water.

"You'd be shocked at the outcome of what a cup of water does in a cup of grease," said Hurst, who has organized a demonstration for news media on Thursday to illustrate the result of this dangerous mixture.

On Monday, he also talked about the dangers of illegal suites that lack proper safety standards.

The unit where the fire happened is a renovated attic with no working smoke alarm and its small windows would be difficult to escape through, Hurst said.

"You see these things all over the place," he said.

"You're going to an address, knock on the door, and a person says they didn't call you. We don't know they exist if they're not registered."

When firefighters arrived on Sunday, the fire was raging in the upstairs unit.

READ MORE:
http://www2.canada.c...6c-fd1adb9b22e7

[sebberry]

Asides from dumping water on a grease fire, the only lunacy here are the ridiculous hoops one must jump throuh to make their suite legal.

Could be worse: http://www.liveleak....=480_1322463650

[MarkoJ]

In the City of Victoria there are 175 legal secondary suites. They have 361 on file as illegal (stemming from complaints). The actual number is probably 10 times

If you have ever tried doing something with permits with the City of Victoria you'll understand why everyone avoids this process. My father and I added a small deck addition ($1,500) on his 1950s home and well within all offset. Now the city wants the addition to be drawn by a professional designer, the railing we bought at Slegg Lumber onsite engineered (although it came from Slegg with engineering stamps including BC ones), and the planning department wants a survey (we are 10 feet within any offsets).

So the City wants $3,000 worth of paperwork for a $1,500 weekend job my father (professional full time builder) and I did.

I can't even imagine doing a suite. Only 31 people have actually participated in the $5,000 secondary suite incentive......I wonder why? Because you go $40,000 over budget to get the $5,000 from the City....and it takes 3 times as long.

I was in disbelief how long it took to get plans for an attractive spec home my father recently built at 2529 Shakespeare to be approved by the City of Victoria...it just went from one department to another...each time minor changes being requested that delayed him big time (designer has to re-print the plans each time). The city doesn't understand economics and the fact the a builder is making mortgage payments every month waiting for plans to be approved.

[MarkoJ]

PS. How come the city only goes after people trying to improve their property? Every week I show homes in Victoria that have 80 year old windows, the decks are falling apart, electrical hasn't been upgraded, there is mold and the city does nothing and turns a blind eye?

However....want to do a new kitchen with efficient appliances, put in a new bathroom that uses less water, and throw a bit of insulation into a 1950s home with professional trades people but without a permit and all of a sudden you are the bad person that the city puts their resources on.