3483 replies to this topic

[spanky123]

Then they need to run for much higher political offices, as there is absolutely no way this sort of decision should be made by municipal politicians,

 

If you decline commercial applications then you just make it a much more compelling argument that the City should have a land bank and be building housing itself.

Edited by spanky123, 04 March 2019 - 08:33 AM.

[Nparker]

As long as no one thinks I support the concept behind the above statement then yes, I agree with what you are saying.

[Citified.ca]

An aerial view of Sooke's town centre, looking southeast. Marked in blue are parcels acquired by BC Housing for the purposes of constructing nearly 250-units of affordable rental apartments in four buildings.

 

$68 million in affordable housing earmarked for Sooke on Victoria's Westshore

https://victoria.cit...rias-westshore/

[Citified.ca]

 

Ten on the 10th: insurance Q&A with Luke Mills of Megson FitzPatrick

https://victoria.cit...on-fitzpatrick/

 

Some points of note for this topic:

 

When it comes to multi-family buildings, what is the dominant cause of loss?

Water damage losses continue to be the single greatest cause of loss when it comes to multi-unit residential buildings. We expect to see rising premium rates and deductibles, especially for properties that have experienced frequent and/or severe claims. Insurers may also look more carefully at the age and condition of buildings and how well they are managed and maintained.

 

What about the rising cost of construction? Does that affect insurance premiums?

Absolutely. Rising construction costs will continue to contribute to higher premiums as damaged property costs more to repair or replace.

 

What are factors affect local insurance premiums?

Throughout much of BC, including on Vancouver Island, we have exposure to potentially catastrophic losses such as earthquakes, tsunamis and wildfires, which increasingly figure into Insurers premium calculations

 

And as society becomes more litigious we are also seeing an increase in the frequency and cost of liability claims of the slip, trip and fall variety. [Full article]

[tjv]

An aerial view of Sooke's town centre, looking southeast. Marked in blue are parcels acquired by BC Housing for the purposes of constructing nearly 250-units of affordable rental apartments in four buildings.

 

$68 million in affordable housing earmarked for Sooke on Victoria's Westshore

https://victoria.cit...rias-westshore/

sorry old news, these properties were acquired awhile ago.  In fact the first tenders have already closed, existing tenants on Sooke Rd are scheduled to vacate at the end of June

[Mike K.]

Do those tenants live in tents, or in tree houses?

[tjv]

2 existing houses

[tedward]

An aerial view of Sooke's town centre, looking southeast.

 

Minor correction. Pretty sure this is taken looking southwest, ie towards Port Renfrew, not Victoria.

[Mike K.]

By golly you're right!

 

Thanks for that.

[Citified.ca]

Thanks for the heads-up, Kapten!

 

With the 1301 Hillside proposal switching gears and including an affordable homeownership component, this raises BC Housing's involvement with Victoria condo projects to four (outlined in the article). We're likely to see quite a bit more of this sort of push.

 

Rental proposal at Cook and Hillside switches gears to BC Housing-backed condo project

https://victoria.cit...-condo-project/

[LJ]

Major article in the Arizona Republic about the cost of housing in Phoenix quickly becoming unaffordable.

 

Average cost in metro Phoenix is $273,000, but you can commute from one of the bedroom communities and find homes for under $200k.

 

Median household income is $69,000.

 

For comparison San Francisco is $1.3M with a median income of $116,000.

 

Atlanta is the cheapest $232,000 with a median income of $74,800.

[Citified.ca]

Belmont Residences West (left), comprised of 80-suites of condominium residences along Reunion Avenue in Langford, is slated for completion next spring. Crossing at Belmont, at-right, is one of two rental apartments nearing completion as part of the Belmont Master Plan Community that includes Belmont Market Shopping Centre. Crossing at Belmont is launching a first-of-its-kind rent-to-own program to help its future residents transition to homeownership at Belmont Residences.
 
Rent-to-own program launching at Belmont Market's rental homes a first-of-its-kind on Vancouver Island
https://victoria.cit...ncouver-island/
 
Renters in the Capital Region will soon have the option of contributing a portion of their monthly rent towards a condominium purchase through a first-of-its-kind program launching this month on the Westshore, Citified has learned.
 
Crossing at Belmont, the 156-suite rental component of Langford’s mixed-use Belmont Master Plan community nearing completion along Jacklin Road, is readying to welcome tenants this fall with a rent-to-own initiative catered to individuals working towards homeownership.
 
Qualified tenants will have the option of contributing 25% of their monthly rent towards a purchase at Belmont Residences, a multi-phased condominium project underway adjacent to Belmont Market and Crossing at Belmont. [Full article]

[spanky123]

Looks like an interesting battle setting itself up for the COTW meeting this week. https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=35921

 

In my cursory reading of the report, it appears as though staff are indicating that they would prefer that developers continue to contribute to the housing affordability fund in return for rezoning / bonus density as opposed to setting aside or proportioning units designated as affordable. This runs contrary to what Isitt, Loveday and the TV crowd have been requesting. 

Edited by spanky123, 10 April 2019 - 07:27 AM.

[Jackerbie]

Looks like an interesting battle setting itself up for the COTW meeting this week. https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=35921

 

In my cursory reading of the report, it appears as though staff are indicating that they would prefer that developers continue to contribute to the housing affordability fund in return for rezoning / bonus density as opposed to setting aside or proportioning units designated as affordable. This runs contrary to what Isitt, Loveday and the TV crowd have been requesting. 

 

No, they're going with Richmond's model: cash-in-lieu for projects under 60 units, secured affordable housing units for projects with more than 60 units. Developers would still be able to proposed cash payments over 60 units, but it would be at the discretion of Council. The draft policy is in Attachment A to the report: https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=35922

[Mike K.]

Understandably the oversight to ensure x% of units are rented at “affordable” rates for time immemorial must be daunting. How do you enforce that? How do you decide what is and what isn’t affordable in a specific building?

[spanky123]

No, they're going with Richmond's model: cash-in-lieu for projects under 60 units, secured affordable housing units for projects with more than 60 units. Developers would still be able to proposed cash payments over 60 units, but it would be at the discretion of Council. The draft policy is in Attachment A to the report: https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=35922

 

I could be wrong but I read that as only urban core designation with more than 60 units. In addition, the bonus density calculations are often open to interpretation as we saw in the firehall lands case where the developer claimed that they should be able to transfer unused 'theoretical density' from one site to another to effectively eliminate any CACs.

Edited by spanky123, 10 April 2019 - 07:58 AM.

[spanky123]

Understandably the oversight to ensure x% of units are rented at “affordable” rates for time immemorial must be daunting. How do you enforce that? How do you decide what is and what isn’t affordable in a specific building?

 

This is a valid point. The model is that the units would be managed by a group like Pacifica. Pacifica though, from what I recall reading, has said that they are not suited to managing a single unit (or two) in a building and would much rather operate the entire facility. 

[Jackerbie]

Understandably the oversight to ensure x% of units are rented at “affordable” rates for time immemorial must be daunting. How do you enforce that? How do you decide what is and what isn’t affordable in a specific building?

 

It's done through a housing agreement on title and a housing agreement bylaw. The agreement will have reference to specific units in the building with a clause that they cannot be further stratified (i.e, all of the affordable units appear on a single strata plan). The agreement will either include rental rates or reference the City policy, which includes rental rates and income thresholds. Richmond has been doing it for years, I believe we were the first to have such a policy which is why most other municipalities just do what we do or a version thereof.

 

I could be wrong but I read that as only urban core designation with more than 60 units. In addition, the bonus density calculations are often open to interpretation as we saw in the firehall lands case where the developer claimed that they should be able to transfer unused 'theoretical density' from one site to another to effectively eliminate any CACs.

 

The 60 unit threshold is proposed for the "Urban Core," "Town Centre," and "Large Urban Villages." Properties designated "Urban Residential" have a height limit of 6 storeys in the OCP, so I guess the thought is that it will be more difficult for those developments to hit the 60 unit threshold anyways.

 

Re: bonus density, CoV isn't going about it the same way as Richmond did. We effectively downzoned the entire city, and developers can get back up to or above what was originally permitted through density bonusing. Victoria seems more complicated than that.

[spanky123]

It's done through a housing agreement on title and a housing agreement bylaw. The agreement will have reference to specific units in the building with a clause that they cannot be further stratified (i.e, all of the affordable units appear on a single strata plan). The agreement will either include rental rates or reference the City policy, which includes rental rates and income thresholds. Richmond has been doing it for years, I believe we were the first to have such a policy which is why most other municipalities just do what we do or a version thereof.

 

 

Thanks for your insight on this. I think the bottom line is that some members of council believed that the City wasn't receiving much from developers to support affordable housing which is why they proposed the change. The proposed changes seem to be less than what was being asked for hence my original comment about the meeting being interesting.

[spanky123]

Thanks for your insight on this. I think the bottom line is that some members of council believed that the City wasn't receiving much from developers to support affordable housing which is why they proposed the change. The proposed changes seem to be less than what was being asked for hence my original comment about the meeting being interesting.

 

The changes proposed by City staff and the Mayor were defeated this morning and the issue is being referred back to staff. Temporary policy remains in effect.

 

I think that developers who ignore the mood on council do so at their own risk. Isitt and TV are calling the shots now and they clearly expect developers to be sharing a much greater percentage of the wealth then they have in the past.

Edited by spanky123, 11 April 2019 - 10:56 AM.