3492 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

Capital Daily today:


To comfortably afford a Victoria one-bedroom, you now need to be making $75k

The math
It’s recommended that renters should spend no more than 30% of their monthly income (before taxes) on housing, but these days that may be inconceivable for many. For one person to comfortably afford a one-bedroom at current prices, they would need to make at least $74,800 per year—and that’s assuming all utility costs are included in the rent, which they often are not.





Why don’t otherwise bright people ever challenge “the math”?

If I’m earning $100,000 “the accepted mindset” suggests I can pay $30,000 on rent.

Leaving me $70,000 for other things.

(I’m just leaving out tax for simplicity)

But if my fixed costs (leaving out rent) are the same whether I earn $50,000 or $100,000 why are we stick at this 30% number?


A construction labourer does not **need** much more than a person on welfare needs. One can earn $60,000, one maybe $8,400.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 June 2022 - 06:13 AM.

[Tom Braybrook]

simple...

 

if i am on welfare i drink instant coffee

 

if i make minimum wage i am off to timmy's or mcd for a cuppa

 

if i make 100 k i am off to starbucks for a half-caff, soy milk, butterscotch no-foam latte w/ avocado toast

 

all my "other" expenses rise commensurate with my income - so the 30% clculation always applies

 

/s

[Victoria Watcher]

A construction labourer does not **need** much more than a person on welfare needs. One can earn $60,000, one maybe $8,400.

 

So the welfare guys pays $4,500 on rent.  @ $375/mo.   $3,900 left over for other things including boots.

 

The labourer pays $18,000 on rent (30%).  $32,000 left over for other things including his steel-toed boots. 

 

 

 

 

But look at it this way instead.

 

 

 

"Sally" is a data clerk for the government, and earns $62,000 per year.

 

"Rhonda" is a lawyer, and earns about $105,000.

 

They both live alone, and work downtown in live in one bedroom apartments.  They both walk to work.  They have the same type of social lives, they have the same clothing budget, the same entertainment and restaurant eating habits and budgets.

 

But society says Sally should spend no more than $18,600/year for shelter, but Rhonda can spend up to $31,500.  

 

So if they both spend up to that limit, Sally has $43,400 left over.  Rhonda has $73,500 left over.   But they both have identical needs, outside of shelter.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 June 2022 - 10:31 AM.

[Mike K.]

The 30% rule does feel archaic but it’s there for a tried and true reason. Banks know that the real monthly home expense is closer to 50% if not higher once you add up short term and long term expenses. They just don’t care to get into the explicit details, and stick to the 30% ratio.

[Mike K.]

The lawyer would have a higher clothing budget, likely significant student loans, and her social life is likely to dictate more spending, per dish or drink, etc, because of who she meets with and engages with. She’d also want to maintain appearances at all times, so her choices are governed more-so than the clerk’s.

Life changes with every $25k in additional earning power. So chances are, the guy earning $50k and the guy earning $100k are equally as stretched as the guy earning $75k.

[Victoria Watcher]

The lawyer would have a higher clothing budget, likely significant student loans, and her social life is likely to dictate more spending, per dish or drink, etc, because of who she meets with and engages with. She’d also want to maintain appearances at all times, so her choices are governed more-so than the clerk’s.

 

She's a government lawyer in the ministry policy branch, 9-5 office work, never sees a courtroom.  She's also physically much less attractive and fit than Sally.   Has less friends outside of work by a long shot.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 June 2022 - 10:50 AM.

[Mike K.]

She’ll be earning a lot less than her peers, then.

[Victoria Watcher]

She’ll be earning a lot less than her peers, then.

 

Than some of her peers in private practice, for sure.  But her government salary grade gets her $105,000.  We already established that.

[Mike K.]

She’s likely to want to hang out with her peers, which means she’ll have a costlier lifestyle.

[Victoria Watcher]

She’s likely to want to hang out with her peers, which means she’ll have a costlier lifestyle.

 

She has 6 cats at home.  And she's very introverted.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 June 2022 - 11:34 AM.

[Mike K.]

Fair.

[JimV]

I see council has taken another step to increase the cost of housing (see today’s TC.)  Builders will have to pay up to $19k if they don’t salvage the material from demolition projects. Older SFDs first, more later.  No details on what’s to be done with this salvaged material.

 

Industry spokesman says even if they avoid the fine it will increase the cost of demolition by about $20k since the work will have to be done by hand instead of machine.  
 

Object is to keep material out of the landfill.  I expect the law of unintended consequences to kick in, as always. 

[Nparker]

Socialism: taxing your way to a more affordable future!

[Mike K.]

Cheaper to pay the fine at this point.

[LJ]

Sally and Rhonda should move in together.

[Victoria Watcher]

Almost 90 per cent of Oak Bay residents hope to see infill housing brought to the district, a public engagement summary revealed.

 

Council, meeting as committee of the whole on June 15, was told by Lindsey Fryett Jerke, an urban planner for DIALOG, the first round of engagement revealed 88 per cent of Oak Bay residents desire at least one type of infill housing, and most notably townhouses and duplexes.

 

“While people want to see infill housing, it is important to them that it achieves a high quality of design and contributes to the unique character of Oak Bay that they love today,” Fryett Jerke said, adding the community prioritized preserving greenspaces and ecology and housing demographics such as young people, young families and seniors.

 

 

https://www.vicnews....infill-housing/

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 20 June 2022 - 04:38 AM.

[JimV]

^90% of residents who participated in the “engagement” process.  Probably about 1% of total residents.

[dasmo]

Looks like they might need to not-up-zone but increase the allowable density in single family zoning to make way for…. The Missing Middle!

[dasmo]

What a coincidence!
“ DIALOG proposed three initial infill strategies: simplifying large lot subdivisions to limit rezoning and permitting; adding multiple units that fit within current regulations, which would likely encourage duplexes and detached suites; and rezoning Oak Bay’s 300 legal duplexes that don’t conform to zoning bylaws.”

[JimV]

Looks like they might need to not-up-zone but increase the allowable density in single family zoning to make way for…. The Missing Middle!

What’s the difference between that and upzoning?