5833 replies to this topic

[johnk2]

oversupply of new homes in edmonton and calgary?  great send the homeless!

Didn't the builders realize 2-3 years ago that Alberta's economy was heading for the dumpster? In Alberta the future never seems to be further away than the next 90-day business cycle.

[spanky123]

^ Yeah but that is how economics work and why we have business cycles.

 

Look at Victoria, developers are going to build units right up until the point where they can no longer sell them at a profit. By that point the market will have already shifter into saturation yet in progress supply will still be coming online for another 12-24 months. On the flip side, it won't be until 12-24 months after supply has dried up before developers start again.

 

The problem we have is when Government starts creating new policy to address one part of the supply cycle while ignoring the rest. Rent controls as an example help compress pricing when demand strips supply but then discourages new development to start the building cycle again.

[Greg]

The problem we have is when Government starts creating new policy to address one part of the supply cycle while ignoring the rest. Rent controls as an example help compress pricing when demand strips supply but then discourages new development to start the building cycle again.

 

A strikingly large percentage of governmental policy makers in all fields seem to be wildly unfamiliar with the concept of unintended consequences.

[Mike K.]

A strikingly large percentage of governmental policy makers in all fields seem to be wildly unfamiliar with the concept of unintended consequences.

 

And that's the result of untethering market realities from bureaucratic performance. The development industry knows the outcomes of government decisions, but the governments refuse to listen because outcomes are not the motivator, agendas are.

[A Girl is No one]

They can always create more government to deal with the unintended consequences, and deal with those the same way they dealt with the original problem...

[VIResident]

PETITION:

No Home Equity Tax

 

To the Prime Minister,

Canadians work hard to build equity in their homes. They use that equity to buy new homes and provide for retirement. Proceeds from the sale of a primary residence have always been exempt from federal taxes.

The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation is spending $250,000 to study proposals for a home equity tax. A home equity tax would take big chunks of the proceeds when families sell their homes. That would leave them with less to buy a new home or provide for retirement.

A home equity tax is wrong: Canadians shouldn’t be taxed on the equity in their homes.

We, the undersigned, call on the prime minister to firmly and clearly reject any proposal for a home equity tax.

 

 

https://www.taxpayer...Z5lA1FJzBtHVu0k

[LJ]

Isn't the home equity tax a yearly tax on the increased value of your home over the year?

 

Hellyer tried to implement that in the first wave of Trudeau.

 

Capital gains tax on your own home will certainly come in, and it will be at least 50% IMO.

[Mike K.]

Man oh man, real-estate prices are going to go through the roof.

[RFS]

That might be what it takes to finally take Trudo down

[max.bravo]

No way. Trudeau can see the writing on the wall. Apparently only 27% of Millennials own homes (the rest either rent or live with parents). Millenials now make up a larger share of eligible voters than Boomers. This is a policy designed to appeal to renters.

If we continue to artificially inflate housing prices by restricting supply (thru various means, mostly civic level red tape), then It’s only a matter of time before every party adopts this policy stance and it becomes a reality. As soon as homeowners are a minority in canada this will become law

Edit: source https://abacusdata.c...home-ownership/

Edited by max.bravo, 29 September 2020 - 10:41 PM.

[VIResident]

No way. Trudeau can see the writing on the wall. Apparently only 27% of Millennials own homes (the rest either rent or live with parents). Millenials now make up a larger share of eligible voters than Boomers. This is a policy designed to appeal to renters.

If we continue to artificially inflate housing prices by restricting supply (thru various means, mostly civic level red tape), then It’s only a matter of time before every party adopts this policy stance and it becomes a reality. As soon as homeowners are a minority in canada this will become law

Edit: source https://abacusdata.c...home-ownership/

 

Had not thought of this aspect Max.  'homeowners are a minority'.  Perhaps parents ought to begin educating their children - the ones who rent or live with parents and those hoping the inheritance will give them a house-buying-leg-up; - the taxman reach into parents/grans/aunts/uncles pockets simply means less money for the darlings when the 6-feet-under happens to those relatives the darlings will inherit from.  Same goes for funds spread to various organizations, non-profits etc., less money for them.

Edited by VIResident, 30 September 2020 - 04:46 AM.

[Mike K.]

This is why, in my opinion, if taxes are going to build market housing (which they are in some affordable housing projects where a portion of homes are allocated “market”) and near-market units, that we get serious about splitting some of that investment into ownership opportunities. Sparrow by Abstract has nine units that are BC Housing-backed for a 5% down payment option, and of course there was Vivid by Chard.

[max.bravo]

Any policy that gets renters into home ownership is a good hedge against this tax becoming reality. But obviously you have to do that without tanking current housing prices- that would be political suicide. It’s why current policies are mostly just lip service. Tough game to play politically.

I’m actually in favour of lenders being allowed to offer very long term loans as a way to get people into home ownership without killing house prices.

In Japan and Switzerland you can get 50 year+ mortgages. This makes sense in markets where houses are intergenerational assets that stay in the family for generations. I believe this is where victoria is headed. I think this is probably the best way to make a $900k house affordable for a couple who makes $100k/year.

[Mike K.]

My concern with that is you end up with real-estate hoarding, and buying becomes something only the truly wealthy and upper middle class can do in the cities.

I saw this in a major city in Europe, and to come from where homeownership is a pursuit by many middle class adults, it was eye-opening to see that over there they had already relegated themselves to life-long renting, regardless of what middle class strata of income they had.

Listening to the rhetoric of late among politicians and wannabe politicians, they consider renting an asset, which speaks to what you wrote a couple of posts above, max. We’re also seeing a very, very large push to demand government provide housing assistance whether people ‘want’ to live (because they know the argument that counters that is “move to where you can afford it,” ie the suburbs).

And look at how the suburbs have been vilified in recent years in tandem with the political rhetoric. Highways are bad! Driving is bad! Billions must be spent on LRT! Do not provide employment in the suburbs! And so on. The urban/suburban rhetoric has also become political with suburbanites painted as more ‘right wing.’ Helpful, isn’t it?

I recognize I’m presenting this like a rats nest of themes, but it is all part of a larger puzzle and interconnected politically. Now with COVID, watch this politicizing go into overdrive as logical solutions to affordability and intra-regional travel demands get heavily opposed (ie more offices on the West Shore; more housing in cheaper suburban areas; better road infrastructure).

[max.bravo]

Fully agree the whole Jane Jacobs/New Urbanism thing has been uncritically swallowed by politicians, and the result is bad policy. They trot out rhetoric about cars being evil and bike lanes & walkability being the panacea we all need. But in the era of electric cars and remote work opportunities it's pretty clear what most people with families want. We should probably be revisiting FLW's Broadacres suburban utopia concept rather than trying to create Jacobs' NYC-lite in every developed area.

 

The worst part is they're trying to make vibrant, interesting places through evermore restrictive zoning, official community plans, and centralized land use controls. It doesn't work like that. The truly interesting built environments-- the ones everyone wants to emulate-- are special precisely because of lack of government interference. Selkirk is a good example of a perfectly planned emulation of a vibrant livable community. On paper it's phenomenal. In reality, it's a lifeless complex.

 

Governments need to get out of the way and let people do the things they've been doing naturally for hundreds of years- let humans use and improve their property they way they want/need to with minimal interference. Sorry Mike, you've coaxed me onto my soapbox here... this is one issue I feel strongly about.

[Victoria Watcher]

I agree.

[aastra]

The worst part is they're trying to make vibrant, interesting places through evermore restrictive zoning, official community plans, and centralized land use controls. It doesn't work like that. The truly interesting built environments-- the ones everyone wants to emulate-- are special precisely because of lack of government interference.

 

I'd say don't waste your time with what they're claiming. Just pay attention to what they're actually doing.

 

Literally, we live in an era when the authorities and their political agents can claim to have deep-seated environmental concerns.... and that's why they've ordered the chopping of 50,000 urban trees. (But aastra! They label themselves environmentalists! So they must be environmentalists, right? Next you'll tell me peacemakers aren't really peacemakers when they firebomb innocent people in order to bring them freedom!)

 

How many times do we need to mention it? The forces that claim to be making urban living more affordable and accessible have used every trick in the book to make urban living more expensive and inaccessible. The forces that claim to be addressing homelessness have used every trick in the book to aggravate homelessness. The forces that claim to be battling the rental shortage have used every trick in the book to aggravate the rental shortage (for frickin' decades!). Insert your favourite issue here because you'll get the same result every time.

 

 

 

...it's pretty clear what most people with families want.

 

Many, many people want to live in the city. What has the city done to facilitate this? Like I said in another thread:

 

"Meanwhile, Victorians have been wanting to live downtown since the 1960s, and in a big way since the early 2000s. And yet the CoV is still doing nothing to water it & facilitate it. At best the CoV has evolved from the "staunch resistance" phase to the "grudging acceptance but still generally uncooperative" phase."

[Mike K.]

Let’s not be that harsh about the downtown density equation, though.

This forum was established because we couldn’t build seven-storey lowrises. Remember ol’ Curt at the TC, calling everything taller than a tree a tower?

Times have changed and density has risen accordingly in the downtown core, but ironically it’s not the density that’s the problem today, it’s the social disorder. It’s ironic because higher density was also sold as a solution to safety concerns with the more ears and eyes on the street thing, more concern for the health and vitality of the core with more people living there, etc. But who knew it would be City Hall that would stick its foot out after all of those years of positive progress.

[aastra]

 

Times have changed and density has risen accordingly in the downtown core, but ironically it’s not the density that’s the problem today, it’s the social disorder.

 

I don't think there's any irony. The authorities never seriously planned for any kind of 21st-century downtown residential renaissance in Victoria (apologies to any revisionists who might be reading this), and they've generally resisted it as it was happening. And when it was finally obvious to all that the process had developed its own momentum, they didn't embrace it or encourage it. So now we seem to be in the counterbalancing phase. Every good thing (Hudson district & Ironworks area, for example) needs to be offset by something. One step forward, one step back.

 

Imagine, if you will, two alternative timelines:

 

Alternative Timeline #1:
The CoV and the province did exactly the same things that they've been doing in our timeline, but the residential development by Chard & Concert et al. never happened.
Question: What would downtown Victoria be like?

 

Alternative Timeline #2:

The residential development by Chard & Concert et al. happened exactly the same way it happened in our timeline, but the CoV and the province didn't do any of the things that they've been doing.

Question: What would downtown Victoria be like?

 

The second scenario might leave more room for argument, but that first scenario should definitely send a chill down our collective spine.

[aastra]

I've mentioned it before, how you can pore over the old news items from the decade of your choice, and no matter what downtown's troubling issues happen to be in any given era, the option to facilitate residential development downtown is never on the table. Every once in a while there might be a quote from some commentator about how residential development could be beneficial. But the authorities are oblivious.

 

Instead, the authorities are always scheming up seemingly tangential initiatives: an expensive new civic project, or widening streets, or narrowing streets, or re-configuring streets, or narrowing sidewalks, or widening sidewalks, or adding bike paths, or adding bike lanes, or removing bike lanes (whoops, sorry, that's still to come), or planting trees, or cutting down trees, or closing streets to traffic, or creating new streets, or tearing down old buildings to showcase the city's heritage, or etc.