3800 replies to this topic

[lanforod]

Nobody’s getting pregnant anymore. Didntcha ya hear?

[LJ]

We don't know that, we just know the birthrate is low.

[Matt R.]

Alcoholism!

Well after a while yeah, the immediate repercussions can be a little more acute.

[Victoria Watcher]

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he would remove Canada’s 5% national sales tax on new homes sold for under C$1 million ($719,700) if he’s elected prime minister.

 

Poilievre, whose party leads by about 20 points in recent polls, said the cut would save around C$2,200 a year in mortgage payments on a C$800,000 house.

 

 

https://www.bloomber...-many-new-homes

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 28 October 2024 - 06:46 AM.

[dkuitu]

 

2120 Quadra St
 

[Victoria Watcher]

[Mike K.]

It was all supposed to work itself out, by flooding the nation with international students. It would guarantee demand, for ever rising rental housing prices to keep pace with ever rising construction cost increases, due largely to building code changes, a weak Canadian dollar and taxation (think of the impact of carbon taxes on housing - it’s huge) and rising land costs, DCC costs and still expensive, complex municipal approvals. And don’t forget about historic inflation, which is still impacting budgets.

Add to that immigration, and you’d have enough demand to sustain condos, even. But here’s the rub. Canadians cannot afford $450k 1BR condos as starter homes (without parking). By and large, that’s unattainable what should be entry level housing. You may have a great job, but unless you’re with a partner, or you have parents with money, you’re not buying a new entry level condo at today’s prices. All said and done, at today’s mortgage rates, and today’s taxes, you’re at around $2,000-$2,100 in monthly expenses for that unit, provided you had $90k down, plus closing costs. That means your monthly income has to be at around $6k, or $72k/year, and you would need that $90k. Not a lot of kids leaving university with a salary anywhere near that, let alone the ability to save about $20k/year for five years. It also makes it a challenge for investors. Couple the taxes on ‘flipping’ and the market for investor-owned condos has dried up as well.

So there’s why building is down 19%. And there are plenty of other factors working against the delivery of housing.

[dasmo]

That’s with no other debt. What are the odds of that? Car? Student loans? Credit cards?

[Matt R.]

What are building stats like for Edmonton and Halifax, Mike?

[Mike K.]

Couldn’t tell ya.

[Matt R.]

That’s with no other debt. What are the odds of that? Car? Student loans? Credit cards?

I am so grateful my partner taught our kids financial literacy. They’ll be finished their degrees with money in the bank, a really strong head start on adulthood.

[Mike K.]

Huge.

Now get them to put away $50/week. By the time they’re 30, that money, if they’re 21 years old, will = to $25k at 3% interest, if compounded monthly.

If they can put away $300/month by the time they’re 25, that will grow to $31,500 by 30.

[Matt R.]

Yes, they are financially literate.

[Victoria Watcher]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The City of Victoria is proposing a 258% DCC increase from $6,871.19 to $24,582.06 for low density residential. For townhomes, duplexes etc the increase is 133% from $6,238.90 to $14,529.66.

 

The city’s report says their consultation involved “12 participants, in addition to City staff and consultants.”

 

There were no invitations to hundreds of local builders impacted by this enormous increase adding to costs of homebuyers. The Best Practices Guide says there “must” be opportunities for meaningful and informed input.

 

DCC increases of up to 258% are clearly “excessive,” “deter development” and “discourage construction of reasonably priced housing.”

 

Add these costs to the CRD’s plan for DCC water charges of $9,045 per new single family home and $7,914 to townhomes, duplexes, etc.

 

 

 

https://www.vrba.ca/...ds-enforcement/

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 18 November 2024 - 05:56 AM.

[Mike K.]

What makes the situation even more egregious is affordable developments back-stopped by provincial dollars, are usually exempt or charged much less than market housing developers. So the province gets away, essentially, with not paying a lot of these fees to municipalities.

I think it’s clear to us observers on the sidelines that something is very broken.

[dasmo]

Someone has got to pay for the entangled web of NGOs dictating their priorities… https://www.globalcovenant-canada.org/

[Victoria Watcher]

In this report:

 

https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=94403

 

 

How do you think the consultant went about choosing these communities for the comparison?

 

 

[Sparky]

^ They forgot Vancouver.

[dasmo]

How does one get these consulting jobs? A few days with GPT prompting why they need more money and what? $80,000?

[Mike K.]

Another angle to this.

Businesses strive to be competitive, and the lower their costs, the more competitive they can be. But when they raise their prices because they can, relative to their competitors, we consider that collusion or price fixing.

When governments raise their fees because they see other municipalities charging more, we do not consider that collusion or price fixing.

If Victoria is charging less than others, why must it now charge more? What is the business case for that increase, aside from ‘because we can?’

Why do businesses get in trouble for raising prices as a block, but governments do not?