3483 replies to this topic

[aastra]

 

The downtown core of Charlottetown is as dense as Sidney or Esquimalt, it is just that the planners built a lot of greenspace into their city design...

 

I don't mean to give you a hard time but I'm reminded of a Halifax forumer on another board who always says things like this whenever people compare density between Canadian cities, as if only cities in Atlantic Canada contain parks, industry, and other non-residential uses. Esquimalt and Sidney both contain green space, not to mention a wide range of other uses: commercial, recreational, institutional, and otherwise. All places do.

 

Just look at the numbers. Esquimalt has half the population of Charlottetown but in less than one-sixth of the land area. Is there no green space in Esquimalt? No shopping centers, parking lots, schools, industrial properties, etc.? Of course these things are there. These things are everywhere.

 

I've never been to Charlottetown but let's play ball here and suppose that half (!) of Charlottetown city's land area is empty green space, and let's also suppose that there isn't any green space or other non-residential uses worthy of note in Esquimalt. Even if the populated area of Charlottetown was only 22 square km, the average density per square km within that populated area would still be well below Esquimalt. You'd need to reduce the land area of Charlottetown city by two-thirds to get the same average density as Esquimalt. That would be a heck of a one-sided adjustment.

 

How about Oak Bay? Would we say a lot green space has been incorporated into Oak Bay's design? Oak Bay's density is double the density of Charlottetown city.

 

How about Saanich? Saanich is big (2.4x the land area of Charlottetown city) and Saanich is overflowing with green space. But Saanich's density is still more than 30% higher than Charlottetown city.

 

Anyway, I'm always curious about this sort of thing so when I have time later I'll have a look at the census dissemination areas. Maybe Charlottetown does indeed have some very dense neighbourhoods that balance out the unpopulated emptiness? But the aerial pics suggest otherwise.

[aastra]

I should note: Charlottetown is a real city so obviously it's going to have a downtown commercial district that likely has a very low population density (Victorians know this effect all too well, but it would have no relevance to places like Esquimalt or Oak Bay).

Edited by aastra, 03 July 2019 - 03:42 PM.

[aastra]

Some letters in the Times-Colonist:

 

Stuff still gets built in Victoria despite all of the red tape, delays, fees, etc. so therefore the red tape is no problem.

 

 

Despite all the media hype implying that Langford accounts for much of the growth in the region, this is simply not true.

...the City of Victoria has added more people since 2011 (up 9, 728) than Langford (8,918).

Additionally, the City of Victoria has recorded more housing starts than Langford in five of the past eight years.

...considering its land base is fully built up, Victoria has done a remarkably good job over the past several years in accommodating new residents...

..."red tape" has not had a significant detrimental impact on growth in Victoria, and there’s nothing to suggest that reducing red tape would significantly reduce housing costs.
 

 

*****

 

If Oak Bay were to change its lax zoning and prohibit those massive luxury condo towers then the price of real estate in Oak Bay would surely drop.

 

 

Many people are saying that the cost of land is so high, we can’t expect developers to build 20 per cent affordable housing. This is flawed logic.

The price of any given piece of raw land will reflect the allowable use of that land. If Victoria decides that only turnips can be grown on a piece property, then the price of that property will fall until growing turnips is a viable option.

If they require 20 per cent (or even 100 per cent) affordable housing, then the price of the land will fall, until it works for developers.

Right now, the land is priced with the expectation that 100 per cent luxury condos can be built. Change that expectation, and the price falls. This is basic supply and demand, and just as certain as gravity.

Edited by aastra, 04 July 2019 - 03:01 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

that last letter presumes the land is currently not revenue producing.

[Mike K.]

That letter is typical bafflegab.

It’s nonsensical ranting that sounds smart and informed but is completely at odds with how the real world works. And yes, kids, there is a real world behind the “if Victoria decides that only turnips can be grown on a piece property, then the price of that property will fall until growing turnips is a viable option” rhetoric.

There is something called property rights in our society. If a government pursues a path that negatively affects property rights, there are remedies for that through the courts.

Remember when Victoria decided the best use of foreshore in Vic West was a kayak route? After permitting a marina? A million dollar legal settlement fixed that “best use” pursuit.

[Nparker]

...There is something called property rights in our society. If a government pursues a path that negatively affects property rights, there are remedies for that through the courts....

Of course, at least one member of the CoV council has suggested that privately owned property is not in society's best interest. 

[Mike K.]

Everyone’s entitled to an opinion in our society. Even the landowner councillor who thinks so negatively of landownership.

[Nparker]

What's that saying? Opinions are like ***holes. Everyone has one, but most of them stink?

[aastra]

 

...that last letter presumes the land is currently not revenue producing.

 

One writer ponders "the price of any given piece of raw land" while the other writer admits "its (Victoria's) land base is fully built up."

 

Obviously the turnip thing was merely a means to make a point, but even so, the reference to "raw land" would seem to be of no relevance when discussing real estate valuations in the city of Victoria.

 

Something else:

 

 

...the land is priced with the expectation that 100 per cent luxury condos can be built...

 

If Victoria has been mired in real estate crisis for decades but 21st-century luxury condo developments are a very recent phenomenon, then how do we account for ever higher real estate valuations prior to the year 2000? People really need to drop the luxury condo thing as their bogeyman. By definition the genuinely luxurious & super expensive condos are going to exist in very small number compared to the total number of units available, and the properties and buildings that such units occupy are obviously going to be the exception and not the rule. Heck, Victoria has always had fancy mansions and very expensive homes in abundance. Truly luxurious circumstances may well be less common per capita in 2019 Victoria than they were in 1919 Victoria. (Don't quote me, but I sure wouldn't be surprised.)

[Nparker]

People really need to drop the luxury condo thing as their bogeyman

And drop the idea that building condos results in a net zero gain of rental accommodation. I bet at least 25%* of all condos in the CoV are rented out at any given time.

 

*the usual statistical analysis

[Mike K.]

The letter writer is correct.

The land is indeed priced based on the potential of building condos (“luxury” condos is a favourite red herring, because, you know, regular condos are kind of alright) and the government assesses the value of that land accordingly. So yeah, since you’re being taxed on the potentiality of condos, you might as well sell the land for a price reflective of its potential use for building condos.

But here’s the pickle. The government will assess the value of turnip land accordingly. And that is where the letter writer’s bafflegab breaks down, when he realizes that turnips are hardly the taxation opportunity condos were. Oh oh. Now what?

[Love the rock]

Will someone please correct me if I’m wrong . I have heard in low whispering voices strata will not be able to enforce no rentals in buildings because of the empty home tax .
Nothing to do with hardship percentages .You will not be able to force someone to sell if they own more than one property.
If in fact this is true could this open up more rentals.

[Mike K.]

According to the spec tax regulations, the empty home in a strata-titled building where rentals are forbidden will be levied the tax starting in 2020. 2018 and 2019 were freebies. The only option not to pay the tax is for the home to become a primary residence of the owner, or it must be sold.

Theoretically you could rent the home out and contravene strata regulations to avoid the tax, but you’ll be levied strata fines and the strata will have every right to levy them. The government wants you to sell that home, or collect their tax, so there won’t be much sympathy there. But then everything’s up to a court decision. Who knows what the outcome would be, but not many people want to go down that road.

[sebberry]

The government really needs to step in and either reduce the threshold from 3/4 vote to a simple majority for the removal of a restriction like rentals or pets, or simply prohibit those restrictions altogether.  

[Nparker]

The government really needs to step in and...simply prohibit those restrictions altogether.  

Yes let's have government remove even more private property rights. No one is forced to live in a strata. If someone doesn't like strata regulations, then find somewhere else to live.

[spanky123]

The government really needs to step in and either reduce the threshold from 3/4 vote to a simple majority for the removal of a restriction like rentals or pets, or simply prohibit those restrictions altogether.  

 

They are already stepping in to removal rental restrictions altogether, no need for owners to vote on anything.

[Nparker]

They are already stepping in to removal rental restrictions altogether...

This a horrible attack on property owners' rights. I hope it is revoked when a new government comes to power in BC.

[sebberry]

Yes let's have government remove even more private property rights. No one is forced to live in a strata. If someone doesn't like strata regulations, then find somewhere else to live.

 

You see it as removing private property rights, I see it as returning rights to individual strata owners.  Unfortunately with housing being as affordable as it is, not everyone can simply escape living in a strata.  

[sebberry]

This a horrible attack on property owners' rights. I hope it is revoked when a new government comes to power in BC.

 

What about at the strata level?  Why is it OK for the strata to trample on the rights of individual owners to rent, have a pet or have kids, but not OK for the provincial government to step in and regulate it?

[Mike K.]

For government, strata-related changes are not equal to zoning changes. It can be argued removing rental restrictions on strata properties would significantly increase the value of those units.