5833 replies to this topic

[songheesguy]

Huh? OSFI refers to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, aka the banking regulator. The stress test they introduced in 2017 and 2018 affects everyone taking out a mortgage to buy a property. That's about 75% of Victoria purchasers.

I thought you meant off shore foreign investors lmao

[LeoVictoria]

I thought you meant off shore foreign investors lmao

 

Haha, Yes some of those as well, but the foreign buyers tax  eliminated most of them.

 

https://househuntvic...89-in-victoria/

[LJ]

Didn't they start using rainscreen in 1999; where is this 2003 number coming from?

 

Rainscreen didn't become mandatory for residential houses until 2007/08, apartments/condos may have been different.

[Citified.ca]

Could the sun be setting on Victoria's supply of new housing? The development industry says should council introduce a housing policy aimed at subsidizing a portion of rental apartments by other renters or condominium owners in the name of affordability, the financial viability of delivering new housing stock to the Capital could be in jeopardy.
 
Victoria council's affordable housing agenda could derail the supply of new homes
https://victoria.cit...y-of-new-homes/
 
Real-estate developers are sounding the alarm ahead of a vote by the City of Victoria’s newly-minted council to move towards a housing policy which could inadvertently derail the supply of new rentals and condos within the municipality.
 
The Victoria chapter of the Urban Development Institute (UDI), a non-profit association that supports the real-estate development industry through information, education and representation, has issued a statement asserting that the City’s Interim Inclusive Housing and Density Bonus Policy will obstruct the construction of affordable housing rather than foster the creation of much-needed inventory.
 
If adopted at today’s Committee of the Whole meeting, the interim policy would lay the foundation for requiring developers seeking municipal approvals for housing density higher than a property’s zoning allows to face new fees over and above existing density up-lift costs charged by the City (known as DCCs, or development cost charges). [Full article]

[Rob Randall]

It looks like they want future buildings to be similar to Chard's 834 Johnson where the first residential floor of 12 units is administered by Beacon Housing. But this new formula would equate to 17 suites.in a building the size of 834.

[DavidL]

Here we go, ideologically based decision making versus evidence based decision making.  There isn't a single subject matter expert on council and there's no way they've had enough time to develop this through staff.  Three new councilors with zero urban planning experience, procedural or otherwise, Loveday and Isitt still don't know the difference between a rezoning process and a development permit application process, (watch Oct 4th COTW meeting), and out of the gate, with no consultation with the people who actually build things, a new taxation regime. 

 

My initial feeling is that the intention is to make it so difficult to develop in Victoria that the city will find itself with no other choice, (by design), than to get into the development and building business, thus providing Isitt et al with the rationale for their desired significant decommodification of the housing sector in Victoria.  In other words housing becomes a state provided utility rather than a market good.  

[Mike K.]

It looks like they want future buildings to be similar to Chard's 834 Johnson where the first residential floor of 12 units is administered by Beacon Housing. But this new formula would equate to 17 suites.in a building the size of 834.

 

In The 834's case those 17-units made the project viable at a time when there was literally no financing available, the world's economy was in turmoil and buyers were still reeling from the shock of a sudden halt to real-estate transactions.

 

But unlike with The 834, the tenants above are not subsidizing the tenants below. Beacon is not requiring 80-some residents to pay higher strata fees or carry a larger mortgage for the units they assumed.

[Mike K.]

My initial feeling is that the intention is to make it so difficult to develop in Victoria that the city will find itself with no other choice, (by design), than to get into the development and building business, thus providing Isitt et al with the rationale for their desired significant decommodification of the housing sector in Victoria.  In other words housing becomes a state provided utility rather than a market good.  

 

This sentiment is being echoed far and wide, believe me.

 

Luckily there are checks and balances in our system that will prevent this utopia from materializing, namely:

- Isitt is already eyeing higher office

- tax increases should market development activity halt will be monumental and political ramifications equally so

- the 'new council' will very quickly learn what it means to play doctor with the economics of a city. Making promises and making good on those promises is a concept they've yet to be responsible for at this level of complexity

[songheesguy]

Victoria-council's-affordable-housing-pursuit-could-derail-the-supply-of-new-homes.jpg
Could the sun be setting on Victoria's supply of new housing? The development industry says should council introduce a housing policy aimed at subsidizing a portion of rental apartments by other renters or condominium owners in the name of affordability, the financial viability of delivering new housing stock to the Capital could be in jeopardy.
 
Victoria council's affordable housing agenda could derail the supply of new homes
https://victoria.cit...y-of-new-homes/
 
Real-estate developers are sounding the alarm ahead of a vote by the City of Victoria’s newly-minted council to move towards a housing policy which could inadvertently derail the supply of new rentals and condos within the municipality.
 
The Victoria chapter of the Urban Development Institute (UDI), a non-profit association that supports the real-estate development industry through information, education and representation, has issued a statement asserting that the City’s Interim Inclusive Housing and Density Bonus Policy will obstruct the construction of affordable housing rather than foster the creation of much-needed inventory.
 
If adopted at today’s Committee of the Whole meeting, the interim policy would lay the foundation for requiring developers seeking municipal approvals for housing density higher than a property’s zoning allows to face new fees over and above existing density up-lift costs charged by the City (known as DCCs, or development cost charges). [Full article]

Does anyone know the outcome of todays meeting?

[Mike K.]

I've been wondering myself! I had to skip town today and just got back so I wasn't able to keep up.

[MarkoJ]

It looks like they want future buildings to be similar to Chard's 834 Johnson where the first residential floor of 12 units is administered by Beacon Housing. But this new formula would equate to 17 suites.in a building the size of 834.

 

Beacon Housing came in and bought the 2nd floor at market value from Chard which worked well for me because I got a 3rd floor unit for the same price as a 2nd floor unit.

[spanky123]

Beacon Housing came in and bought the 2nd floor at market value from Chard which worked well for me because I got a 3rd floor unit for the same price as a 2nd floor unit.

 

With respect, I don't see how this benefits you. You will have a floor of residents who could care less about taking care of the property and an owner who is only interested in keeping strata fees down. I guess if you plan to just rent your unit then that is ok as long as it is a long term rental and you have modeled out the economics of being restricted to 2% rent increases.

Edited by spanky123, 09 November 2018 - 08:03 AM.

[spanky123]

I've been wondering myself! I had to skip town today and just got back so I wasn't able to keep up.

 

TC has an ok overview this morning. Two of the most contentious issues (immediate introduction of affordability thresholds and definition of affordability) were deferred although staff have been directed to negotiate with developers on all new developments while the new policy is being refined. All other motions passed.

[spanky123]

This sentiment is being echoed far and wide, believe me.

 

Luckily there are checks and balances in our system that will prevent this utopia from materializing, namely:

- Isitt is already eyeing higher office

- tax increases should market development activity halt will be monumental and political ramifications equally so

- the 'new council' will very quickly learn what it means to play doctor with the economics of a city. Making promises and making good on those promises is a concept they've yet to be responsible for at this level of complexity

 

Jeff Young made a good point yesterday. Even if council did nothing, they would all be celebrating their success in 4 years as vacancy rates and house prices are already moderating. It is the natural economic cycle. 

What really revealed the inexperience of the new TV members yesterday was their reliance on ad hoc information to draw policy. Someone has a friend who is delaying having a child because they can't find an affordable (for them) 3 bedroom apartment in downtown Victoria, ergo we have a housing shortage of 3 bedroom apartments and we must immediately fix that.

There should bee no doubt who is in charge and where we are heading though. Ben was fixated on housing being a right and not a tool for wealth creation and his ideal model where 100% of housing was provided by the state. The TV members felt that their election gave them the mandate to immediately act to solve the "housing crisis". Jeremy looked as though he finally had an opinion that would be heard and respected.

Edited by spanky123, 09 November 2018 - 08:13 AM.

[Bob Fugger]

Ben was fixated on housing being a right and not a tool for wealth creation and his ideal model where 100% of housing was provided by the state.

 

He stole a house out of civil forfeiture for pennies on the dollar!  FFS!!!!!

[Nparker]

He stole a house out of civil forfeiture for pennies on the dollar...

I guess that's one form of affordable housing.

[spanky123]

He stole a house out of civil forfeiture for pennies on the dollar!  FFS!!!!!

 

I don't know if stole is the right word but he certainly seized upon an opportunity to make money. You know, what a capitalist might do!

[Mike K.]

Why are some of these folks glued to the City of Victoria? There are bigger homes available outside of the city-proper that would be affordable+available to avoid them having to take such drastic measures.

I just can’t wrap my head around someone actually stalling major life plans over something that can be mitigated just a few miles away.

[rjag]

I don't know if stole is the right word but he certainly seized upon an opportunity to make money. You know, what a capitalist might do!

 

shhhh some of the best capitalists disguise themselves as communists....China

[spanky123]

Why are some of these folks glued to the City of Victoria? There are bigger homes available outside of the city-proper that would be affordable+available to avoid them having to take such drastic measures.

I just can’t wrap my head around someone actually stalling major life plans over something that can be mitigated just a few miles away.

 

They are glued to the downtown core because they have been taught that they are entitled to everything that they want. 

 

Let's face it, the vast majority of small cities across Canada have suffered stagnant growth over the past 30 years as new immigrants set up roots in major cities and the rest of the population ages. There are many, many places in Canada where you can live in a beautiful area and buy a house for less than $300K or rent for less than $750 a month. That is never the discussion though, it is all about the right to housing at a price you want to pay anywhere in Canada.

Edited by spanky123, 09 November 2018 - 09:02 AM.