3669 replies to this topic

[dasmo]

UVIC has something like 4,500. That is a pretty big drop. Without those students you would have no shortage of housing in Victoria.

The number of international students with active study permits in Canada rose to 1,040,985 in 2023

[Nparker]

More than 2.5% of the population. That's insane.

Edited by Nparker, 05 August 2024 - 09:20 AM.

[dasmo]

But ya, UVic should build housing.

[spanky123]

^ The taxpayer is building housing so that UVIC can rent it out at elevated rates. 

[Victoria Watcher]

B.C. NDP explains why $2B housing affordability program was not about, er, delivering affordable housing

 

 

Vaughn Palmer: Housing Hub plan meant to subsidize developers to deliver units at affordable rents and prices falls short, gets rebranded

 

 

 

 

The New Democrats are scrambling to explain why their $2-billion program for affordable housing is delivering rental units that are not really affordable.

Case in point: A five-storey, 64-unit project at 1807 Larch St. in Vancouver’s Kitsilano neighbourhood, scheduled to open next month with rents priced at the high end of the market, from $2,650 to $4,300 a month.

 

_______________

 

For the Larch Street project, Housing Hub advanced a $31.8-million low-interest loan to Jameson Development Corp., a family-owned company headed by Tony Pappajohn. The subsidy was intended to hold rents at or below market rates on 54 of the 68 units in the building.

 

_______________

 

“The 393-square-foot studios are being rented on a one-year lease at $2,650 to $2,750 monthly. A 517-square-foot unit rents for $3,275. A 589-square-foot, two-bedroom unit on the top floor with a large patio is available at $4,200 a month. There are 840-square-foot, two-bedrooms with two bathrooms renting at $4,300 monthly. For 10 years, the rents can’t go above market rate.”

 

The studios and one-bedroom units are targeted to “middle-income households” without children and an income up to $131,950. The two and three-bedrooms are for those with children who earn up to $191,910.

______________

 

The rents and targeted income figures were surprising enough. The greater shocker was the response from B.C. Housing, when asked to reconcile the current numbers with Eby’s promise of affordability.

 

“The Housing Hub program is a supply-based program. It’s not an affordability program,” explained Michael Pistrin, vice-president of development for B.C. Housing. “The whole intent of the Housing Hub was just to build more housing. And it was intended to be market (rate) rental housing.”

 

“It’s not supposed to be below market at all. It’s supposed to be ‘at market’ for the most part. We can leverage — through the low-cost financing that we’re able to provide during construction — we can leverage that to force the builder to reduce the rents to slightly below market in some cases, for a percentage of the units.

 

“But that’s on a case-by-case basis … for the most part it was just intended to put market supply out there.”

 

https://vancouversun..._source=twitter

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 08 August 2024 - 03:25 AM.

[dasmo]

So they lied…

[Nparker]

So they lied…

"I'm shocked", said no one.

[lanforod]

It sounds like they are doing everything that people accuse the B.C. Liberals of doing back in the day. Catering to developers.

[Mike K.]

The realities are what they are.

 

Isn't 30% of the cost of housing in Vancouver related to government inputs and taxes?

[Tony]

Housing hub has been replaced by BC Build Program.

 

• Provincial contributions to BC Builds can produce rents that will be attainable for households with incomes:
  • $84,780 to $131,950 for a studio or one-bedroom home
  • $134,410 to $191,910 for a two-bedroom home or larger

[Victoria Watcher]

The B.C. government is scrambling to explain how only 14 of 68 units at a government-subsidized housing development in Vancouver’s Kitsilano neighbourhood are being rented at below-market rates, despite it being touted as an “affordable rental” project.

 

The developer of 1807 Larch St. received $31.8 million in low-interest loans through the HousingHub program, which was designed to provide below-market rentals for middle-income households.

 

________________________

 

The program’s first four projects were a partnership with the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada. Combined, the projects were expected to “build more than 400 new affordable rental homes for individuals, families and seniors” at churches in Vancouver, Richmond, Coquitlam and Nanaimo.

 

The projects in Coquitlam and Nanaimo have opened. A third, at Brighouse United Church in Richmond, has been cancelled after project delays forced the closure of the church in 2021. The developer has since been sued for breach of contract.

 

_______________________

 

One example is Olympic Villas in Merritt, which received $16.6 million in loans. In return, the developer was expected to offer 45 of the building’s 75 units at affordable rates.

 

Instead, according to reporting by the Merritt Herald and the real-estate news outlet Storeys, all of the building’s units were rented at market rates and the building is now being foreclosed on due to Olympic Villa’s failure to repay the government the loans.

 

 

 

https://www.timescol...h-rents-9336908

[spanky123]

^ Here is a shocker for you, nobody ever checks to verify that developers live up to their housing agreement. Is it a surprise then to find out that they aren't?

[Nparker]

To be fair, politicians never live up their agreements either.

[Mike K.]

That Merritt project got underway in 2019.

 

I think we can all agree, that the world is very different today, than it was in 2019.

 

What was considered affordable in 2019 and the metrics that would have been used to derive that, are quite a bit different in 2024.

[spanky123]

^ AFAIK both the City and Province have a definition of what is "affordable". If the developer wasn't prepared to play by the rules then they shouldn't have taken the money.

[Mike K.]

That’s not how it can work if we expect private development to continue to supply housing, but nevertheless, this building still rents for less than comparable older buildings even with the historic challenges constructors faced during COVID. This means the project is competitive, and it does play into affordability.

Now while those government loans are helpful, they’re not free, and we all know where interest rates have gone since the PM announced interest rates would stay low for a very long time. Since 2019, look what has happened to insurance rates, property taxes, maintenance rates, tenancy branch regulations and maintenance costs.

So I don’t think it’s fair to hold a project facing a 2024 financial reality, to a 2019 pro-forma, no more than we can hold governments accountable for project cost and/or schedule overruns.

[LJ]

Big article in the TC the other day about Eby modelling our housing on Singapore's model, i.e. the government owns 90% of the buildings.

 

What they didn't mention in the article is that the vast majority of workers don't live in Singapore, they live in Malaysia and commute.

[Nparker]

It's increasingly clear the NDP's goal is to make housing nearly impossible to build, own or rent so the government can swoop in and take control.

[Tony]

 Must not have been working well in the greater Victoria area in 2023 re the number of new homes built.

 

New costs from municipalities may change the results for 2024 and going forward.. Time will tell.

 

 

https://www.timescol...-record-8123237

Edited by Tony, 13 August 2024 - 08:24 AM.

[Mike K.]

There are currently 8,393 homes under construction in the region, the vast majority of them — 7,481 — condominiums or rental apartments, according to CMHC.

7,481? There are 9,500 units of condos and rentals underway. Why is there such a huge deviation between CMHC data, and my own data, that is accurate as of July?