5833 replies to this topic

[LJ]

^ The higher the cost of living....the better...otherwise we would be crawling all over each other if it was cheap to live here. 

 

Look we live on a little tiny island in the Pacific Ocean with the best weather in the country. We live at the end of the track....and then some. We have to float everything we use here from somewhere else...but we can't convince the rest of the country not to come here. 

 

….now if we could only control immigration... 

Some people come here and find it very cheap to live, almost free in fact.

[Nparker]

Some people come here and find it very cheap to live, almost free in fact.

They're not sending Victoria their best.

[davidN]

Some people come here and find it very cheap to live, almost free in fact.

While I apprecaite everyone deisres the best for themselves and thier families the reality is - life is not fair to everyone. Some people, thorugh hard work or just plain dumb luck are more well off than others. And they can afford to live anywhere they choose. Others cannot.

 

What happend to the days of sacrificing today for the betterment of tomorrow?.

 

Our family was comprised of Mom. Dad, five kids and  grandma all living in a 3 bed house with one bathroom. Space was tight and money short. Both my parents worked two jobs, and the kids wore hand me downs. But so what? We had a great life. We did not whine or feel left out or complained and asked for hand outs. Everyone contributed what they could and we got by. Three of my siblings had to move to communities where the work was and they could afford the standard of living they set for themsleves. They thrived and have created great lives for themselves. It is called growing up!

 

I have no sympathy for those who complain about the cost of living. That's the price you pay for living in one of the most safe, and beautiful areas in the world. Dont like - adapt or move on.

[VIResident]

I was fortunate, that I could, but I sold everything I owned, down to a suitcase and moved across the county to a place that was cheaper - and for rentals! 

I left my family, my 'growing-up' hometown.  18 and fresh out of school. 

My family was mortified that I had 'left', but I made sure I set aside funds each month for a

flight 'home' at least once-a-year. 

I had but 3 friends in my new very large city, no job - homeless.  

Funny, I didn't look at it as 'homeless', I never put it in that 'box'.

'Homeless' was a couch for 2-weeks by which time I had a good paying job and secured a 'rental' - a bit of used furniture and I was set.

It worked for me. 

With each successive new job that paid better I saved until I could purchase a very small condo (with my down payment, I was able to secure a small mortgage).

I rode the housing cycles, selling, buying at the right times.

Often I lived in places that were total dumps, in the 'worst' of worst areas of the city.

Fixed them up (not total gut jobs, fixed up 'enough'). 

Today, people post pictures of houses that are 'awful', comment on how bad they are and the price.  I look at those places and laugh, I would have bought in a heartbeat.

I loved my work, my entertainment was always pre-planned and free (free entertainment required planning); anything I could think of that didn't cost money and by then a large group of friends, the kind of friends that I could bribe with pizza, beer and get my entire house painted in a day.  I had 'painting' parties, 'rip up floors' parties, anything I could add 'party' too I did it and people came.

Sold each home for profit, some more dollars than others and made enough to move to BC and back to rentals. 

Rinse and repeat the above. 

'Sacrifice', I didn't see it as that then, I just did what I felt I had to do and besides, didn't everyone do that? 

I seriously did not know any better.  

I didn't have one single dollar 'gifted' or loaned to me by family.  By today's standards I was 'poor', I didn't know I was because life was full, fun and I was fortunate to have a group of people who cared about me and I them.

I had fun, I gained confidence with each property and I learned. 

[Victoria Watcher]

^ uplifting post of the day!

[Citified.ca]

Construction is well underway on Dockside Green, where three residential towers are rising as part of the resumption of the environmentally-leading development effort in Victoria's Vic West neighbourhood. Dockside Green is one of several pre-sale condominium projects tapping into strong buyer demand for housing in Greater Victoria.

 

Victoria real-estate's busiest March on record sets new pricing highs for condos, townhomes and houses

https://victoria.cit...mes-and-houses/

[intheknow]

To state the obvious, the people most affected should be consulted. I get why this wouldn't make sense from tour perspective, but it's pretty self-evident.

I often think we have it all wrong when we collectively think that the people most affected by development are the one's who already reside closest. At best, these people have to tolerate something that wasn't there before. They already have housing security and are only being asked if some form of development affects this privilege.  I think it's the other people who don't live next to a proposal who, in my view, bear the brunt of development or lack thereof. They often have to move out of neighborhoods to afford housing, relocate their children from one school to another, sometimes change jobs because they can't find suitable housing, etc. etc. Institutionalizing privilege by affording the housed with a mechanism to protect their interests and by prioritizing these supposed impacts over other, far more damaging impacts, just seems backwards.   

[rmpeers]

I often think we have it all wrong when we collectively think that the people most affected by development are the one's who already reside closest. At best, these people have to tolerate something that wasn't there before. They already have housing security and are only being asked if some form of development affects this privilege. I think it's the other people who don't live next to a proposal who, in my view, bear the brunt of development or lack thereof. They often have to move out of neighborhoods to afford housing, relocate their children from one school to another, sometimes change jobs because they can't find suitable housing, etc. etc. Institutionalizing privilege by affording the housed with a mechanism to protect their interests and by prioritizing these supposed impacts over other, far more damaging impacts, just seems backwards.

I could tell tales of a few homeowners I have known struggling under the burden of their first mortgage. Priviledge ain't the word. I understand how the image of all homeowners being Thurston Howell III is easy, but now always true.

[Banksy]

I often think we have it all wrong when we collectively think that the people most affected by development are the one's who already reside closest. At best, these people have to tolerate something that wasn't there before. They already have housing security and are only being asked if some form of development affects this privilege.  I think it's the other people who don't live next to a proposal who, in my view, bear the brunt of development or lack thereof. They often have to move out of neighborhoods to afford housing, relocate their children from one school to another, sometimes change jobs because they can't find suitable housing, etc. etc. Institutionalizing privilege by affording the housed with a mechanism to protect their interests and by prioritizing these supposed impacts over other, far more damaging impacts, just seems backwards.   

You're right thank you for pointing out the neighbours are not the most affected. The people most affected are living on the land the developer wants to redevelop. They will be forced to leave the property before the bulldozers arrive that clear the land so the developer can build million dollar townhomes for the people who don't want to relocate their children from one school to another or have a commute to work. The institutionalized privilege of a person living on a property that is to be redeveloped is a an oppressive construct that must be abolished so we can build million dollar townhomes and help very wealthy people's children not have to change schools.

[rjag]

I often think we have it all wrong when we collectively think that the people most affected by development are the one's who already reside closest. At best, these people have to tolerate something that wasn't there before. They already have housing security and are only being asked if some form of development affects this privilege.  I think it's the other people who don't live next to a proposal who, in my view, bear the brunt of development or lack thereof. They often have to move out of neighborhoods to afford housing, relocate their children from one school to another, sometimes change jobs because they can't find suitable housing, etc. etc. Institutionalizing privilege by affording the housed with a mechanism to protect their interests and by prioritizing these supposed impacts over other, far more damaging impacts, just seems backwards.   

 

How is it privilege to own a house? Every person I know has scrimped and saved, worked numerous jobs, sacrificed lifestyle and many other opportunities to create a long term approach to building a foundation of wealth to carry them through their retirement years.

 

They dont have security if they dont have a job but still have a mortgage and supporting taxes and maintenance costs. If anything a renter is better protected in todays market, no rent increases, and very hard to evict if at all.

 

Owning a home is likely the hardest and most maturing thing to happen to a person. The privilege you speak of is earned through hard work, risk and a lot of sweat equity.   

[Mike K.]

How is it privilege to own a house? Every person I know has scrimped and saved, worked numerous jobs, sacrificed lifestyle and many other opportunities to create a long term approach to building a foundation of wealth to carry them through their retirement years.

 

They dont have security if they dont have a job but still have a mortgage and supporting taxes and maintenance costs. If anything a renter is better protected in todays market, no rent increases, and very hard to evict if at all.

 

Owning a home is likely the hardest and most maturing thing to happen to a person. The privilege you speak of is earned through hard work, risk and a lot of sweat equity.   

 

1000%.

 

There are so many costs involved with homeownership that if you tally it all up, you're paying a lot more than 50% of your income on keeping the house going (of course, everyone's mileage in this regard varies). There's no free ride here, zilch, for the average person.

 

And even if you sell and make 20-30-40-50% on top of what you paid, so what? You'll have invested countless dollars into that home, and most importantly you need to buy back in, and unless you pack your bags and high tail it out of the region you're going to need every single penny from the home sale to put another roof over your head.

[Nparker]

...The people most affected are living on the land the developer wants to redevelop...

What about the development of bare land, the conversion of commercial properties to residential and the redevelopment of parking lots for the construction of homes?

[rmpeers]

1000%.

There are so many costs involved with homeownership that if you tally it all up, you're paying a lot more than 50% of your income on keeping the house going (of course, everyone's mileage in this regard varies). There's no free ride here, zilch, for the average person.

And even if you sell and make 20-30-40-50% on top of what you paid, so what? You'll have invested countless dollars into that home, and most importantly you need to buy back in, and unless you pack your bags and high tail it out of the region you're going to need every single penny from the home sale to put another roof over your head.

Very true. But, I guess, for the Mayor and like-minded politicians etc, the falsehood of the privileged NIMBY homeowner is a good rationale to shed those cumbersome restrictions that are preventing developers from making as much money as possible... sorry, I meant to say, preventing developers from helping humankind by creating a more inclusive, gently-dense, liveable, bikeable, place-making city.

[Mike K.]

I should also add that the first five years of a 25-year amortization is mostly interest. After five years you owe the bank nearly what they mortgaged you in the first place, if you sell your home in that period or even a few years thereafter.

It’s always easy to judge the situations of others but when you’re in the reality yourself you realize it’s not as easy as it’s presented on the internet. That’s why no matter the politics of a person, no matter their outlook on the free market and regardless of their social conscience home sellers universally take the highest offer presented when selling their home. If that weren’t true, very liberal and socially forward Victoria wouldn’t be one of the most expensive places on this continent to buy a house, would it?

[LJ]

They already have housing security and are only being asked if some form of development affects this privilege. 

 

Privilege? How come I see the workless going around with signs saying "housing is a right" ?

[rmpeers]

I should also add that the first five years of a 25-year amortization is mostly interest. After five years you owe the bank nearly what they mortgaged you in the first place, if you sell your home in that period or even a few years thereafter.

It’s always easy to judge the situations of others but when you’re in the reality yourself you realize it’s not as easy as it’s presented on the internet. That’s why no matter the politics of a person, no matter their outlook on the free market and regardless of their social conscience home sellers universally take the highest offer presented when selling their home. If that weren’t true, very liberal and socially forward Victoria wouldn’t be one of the most expensive places on this continent to buy a house, would it?

And let's also not forget that other source of financial stress: property tax. Say, if those privileged homeowners are going to get less of a say in nearby development, perhaps the city could also reduce the cumbersome property taxes that homeowners are privileged to pay.

[Mike K.]

In Victoria property tax is about $400/month for an average residence. And despite 5,000-units of housing built over the span of the last decade, property taxes continued to rise above inflation year-over-year.

One can perhaps begin to understand why Mayor Helps uses the words catastrophe when she speaks to the slow pace of new housing, and therefore new taxation revenues. Without thousands of units every few years the municipal tax equation will become a potentially catastrophic burden if average homeowners and renters will have to cover $500-$600 a month just for property taxes, and not including municipal services like waste disposal, water and sewage.

[Nparker]

...the municipal tax equation will become a potentially catastrophic burden if average homeowners and renters will have to cover $500-$600 a month just for property taxes

It would seem as long as the NDP are in power renters won't be affected by the rising property tax burden. 

[Victoria Watcher]

renters that move are at least for now.

[Mike K.]

It really makes you wonder why Mayor Helps never speaks to the tax burden when she talks about rising housing costs in Victoria.

A typical older apartment carries a tax burden of $200-$250 per month, and newer properties even more. Is it any wonder 1BR units are renting for $1,600/month, and condo properties for even more?

A home selling for $1 million in the City of Victoria will have a tax burden of approximately $400/month. And now there’s talk of doing away with the homeowner grant and requiring residents in their primary residences to pay the full rate, adding about 20% more to their annual tax bill.