3507 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

I don't want to solve the homeless problem, it hasn't been an issue for centuries and now people want to spend hundreds of millions if not billions to fix it

 

My solution is you want a nice place to sleep and live, then GET A $%^&*&^% JOB LIKE THE REST OF US!

 

My solution is a little more nuanced.  If you want to live in $375/mo. apartments, they are going to be very sparse.   And you will have to behave, or be kicked out.   If you have such psychological problems that you cannot be expected to behave and move about on your own accord in free society, you can either sleep on the streets and in shelters on mats, or you can be institutionalized.

 

Which, apart from the being kicked out of 844 part, is the way it is right now.  Nobody on the streets if free from issues (almost always addiction), nobody on the streets is just down on their luck or missing one paycheque.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 12 May 2018 - 07:41 AM.

[spanky123]

Everyone wants to solve the homeless problem but no one wants them living near them. The perfect place for shelter housing is the Uplands in my opinion.

 

Few people want to solve the homeless problem. If there was no problem then we wouldn't need 60+ agencies and 60+ CEOs collecting paycheques. What they want is to keep the issue manageable for themselves but still in the public eye.

 

Now for the reality check. The $90M to end homelessness will only create 400 odd $375 units. The majority of the 2,000 units will be market priced. We have already spent $60M+ in the past two years creating more than 400 spaces and we have more homeless people now then we did when we started. So who believes that 400+ more spaces, when we have 1,300 homeless people is going to end homelessness?!

 

This is all standard smoke and mirrors. Withhold the homeless count results, get the money and then acknowledge that it won't be enough to do what you claimed.  

Edited by spanky123, 12 May 2018 - 07:44 AM.

[tjv]

My beliefs are pretty straight forward, if you were born with severe issues, etc that I believe government should help based on your abilities.  However if you got wasted so many times you end up being like Ozzy Osborne then that's not the government/taxpayers problem.

 

I've said it before and I will say it again, if you build it they will come.  Victoria BC is not going to solve the homeless problem because once the rest of Canada discovers you can have your own bachelor suite with personal bathroom, etc all to yourself, I can see them hitchhiking as fast as they can gather their stuff.  Combine that with the best climate in Canada and you couldn't stop them if you used that $90 million to build a wall.

 

What was BC's response when Alberta offered a free bus ticket to BC and a welfare cheque back in the 90s?

[DustMagnet]

... you couldn't stop them if you used that $90 million to build a wall.

That would be interesting to see though, all White Walker-style.

[Awaiting Juno]

That's exactly what I am trying to figure out.

 

The new health tax is sizeably more than the previous MSP premiums.  The burden shifts to only those who are actively employed, away from everyone - so all of the MSP burden is now on the shoulders of employers, and even then, only on employers with payrolls greater than $500,000 according to the amount of their payroll (not their profit level, but payroll).  Let's say you're a small employer who employs 20, $100,000 a year employees, your payroll tax is now $40,000 - however, before, assuming you paid your employee's MSP and they all had families with kids- the maximum MSP obligation would have been $36,000 ($150 per month, 12 months, 20 employees).  Now chances are some of your employees are single, or have spouses, or whatever, so the MSP obligation was likely lower than that.    

[tjv]

^you were expecting different from the anti business party, oops the NDP?

[Mike K.]

The $90 million will be a down payment amount for a mortgage. So we're likely going to see closer to $750 million in actual investment for these 2000-units.

[VicHockeyFan]

The $90 million will be a down payment amount for a mortgage. So we're likely going to see closer to $750 million in actual investment for these 2000-units.

 

I think your numbers are off.  For the market rate ones, sure.  But for below-market and $375/mo. ones, you are gonna need much more than 15% down to make those work, without a massive yearly cash input from the government.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 13 May 2018 - 08:31 AM.

[Mike K.]

All of the buildings will include a mix of housing, including the market ones. There will be $375/month rentals within market buildings. That’s the current plan, anyway. The unit interiors will be virtually identical across the board.

[VicHockeyFan]

The housing will include 985 market-rental units, 625 affordable-rental units and 400 shelter-rate units for people on provincial assistance who will pay $375 a month. The goal is to have 30 to 40 rental buildings under construction by the end of 2021.

 

 

Who even thinks this is remotely possible?

[Mike K.]

That’s their plan. Neighbours won’t know who is who. At least in theory.

[Nparker]

Who even thinks this is remotely possible?

No one who doesn't view the world through rosy SJW glasses.

[VicHockeyFan]

That’s their plan. Neighbours won’t know who is who. At least in theory.

 

Public hearings will need to be held.  And of course neighbours will have to be told that x number are subsidized and shelter-rate ($375).

 

I can see:

 

0 Oak Bay

2 Saanich

1 Esquimalt

1 Peninsula

4 West Shore 

0 View Royal

 

6 or more in CoV.  Not sure where the rest could go.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 13 May 2018 - 09:05 AM.

[sdwright.vic]

So my building/land is valued at $28,012,000. There are about 163 suites, so $171,852.76 value per suite.

Lowball the average rent at $1000 a month is $163,000 a month in basic rent collection. No monthly parking or storage locker gravy income. Basic rent income is $2,100,000 a year.

Last year's assessed value was $23,957,000. Capreit bought the complex 10 years ago. So if we go at possibly $18,000,000 as the purchase price the true value on an assett ledger would base each suite is $110,429.44.

Since asset value is determined as what it was at the time of purchase, not what it could possible be, most older apartment buildings are more around the the low $100,000.00 right now. This is based on the fact that rental building have shown not a large influx of exchange in ownership over the last decade at least. So must of these buildings were purchased for no where near there current assessed value for land and building.

Next we have that a large number of these buildings are prime for redevelopment. After all they were all poorly constructed correct?

So that means we are looking at just land value of $10,059,000 this year, last year 8,989,000. So for the sake of argument land 10 years ago at $6,000,000.

So the complex sits on a huge waterfront piece of property. redevelopment could net 3 to 4 times the suites at a conservative redevelopment. At 3.5 times we get 570 suites.

570 suites redeveloped at $1400.00 a month is $798,000 rental income. Currently there are two people in the rental office, two maintenance people and two cleaners. So let's put the cleaners at minimum wage and the rest at $20.00 an hour. We are at $24,000.00 in base wages a month (no matching contributions or benefits included).

So triple this if we triple the size of the building. $72,000.
No let's just make it $100,000 a month for all that other stuff.

$798,000 minus
$100,000 salaries
$150,000 contingency fund
$150,000 insurance/land taxes
$100,000 utilities
$ 50,000 whatever
$150,000 construction loan

So about $100,000 a month in profit. Now salaries and staff (over staffed- don't need 6 rental agents) are high and could be lowered. Contingency fund fund could be lowered once the fund reached $2,000,000. The $2,000,000 would be held in a trust to lower insurance cost (a level of self insurance) Utilities could be lowered with solar panels for generation of electricity for common areas.

Then you through profit from parking and storage locker rental. Not much digging out needs to occur hear for underground parking because there is some already, The slope of the land will build the rest.

[Nparker]

Interesting analysis sd. One factor I don't see accounted for is the inevitable backlash from the neighbours about increased density.

[sdwright.vic]

Yeah, well in my scenario they would have no say. This would be the start of a province lead redevelopment scenario.

The province would provide a $10,000,000 interest free redevelopment find for these older properties with the following caveats.

Density must be at least 2.5 times the current density.
At least 1 parking space per suite is built underground or above (if above parking must look like a building). Condo style amenities and finishing (ie en suite washer dryer). You must replace a rental building with rentals.

[tjv]

Maybe we should have a poll about who supports spending untold amounts of money on subsidized housing to house all the homeless people?   Mike, you seem to be the champ at setting up polls

 

When Mike thinks the $90 million is just a down payment for the CRD, I mean holy hell!  Some of us with jobs want some money left over to house, feed and live life ourselves too

[spanky123]

Interesting analysis sd. One factor I don't see accounted for is the inevitable backlash from the neighbours about increased density.

 

One way or another, building subsidized housing removes capacity from what could have been the market housing pool. In a City like Victoria where there is no vacant land to build upon, you wind up increasing the prices of the non-subsidized housing which then creates more people who cannot afford market priced accommodations and then you need more subsidized housing. Round and round we go.

 

The socialist believes that housing should be owned and controlled by the Government. This is the direction that we are heading by creating bylaws and taxes that increase the cost of home ownership while trying to reduce the value of the asset so that at some point building owners are forced to sell their properties at discounts to the Government. That is how you get your 30-40 buildings in 3 years.

[sdwright.vic]

I am not proposing housing for homeless though, nor is it subsidized except for the interest free loan. I even set rents in this redevelopment at $1400 a month (pretty much market rate).

However, my main point is old stock rental units are not $200K per suite and profit is available in redeveloping rentals.

Edited by sdwright.vic, 13 May 2018 - 11:55 AM.

[tjv]

I wasn't suggesting your proposal for homeless, but VHF was talking about it

 

Buy an old rental apartment building and you will pay over @200k per suite today anywhere in the core.

 

Here is a 39 unit apartment building in Esquimalt for sale    around 202k/suite

 

803 Esquimalt Rd  http://www.pembertonholmes.com/listing/Esquimalt-BC/803-Esquimalt-Rd/2s9z#!details  around 220k/suite