Jump to content

      



























Photo

2018 City of Victoria election


  • Please log in to reply
5915 replies to this topic

#1621 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 5,444 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 09:48 AM

 

I've had people (notably one on this blog) refer to me disparagingly as 'the homeowner class'. Sure. Are you saying it's not your fault that you've done a bachelors' degree and probably nary ventured more than a few blocks from your parents' house and you're waiting for the city to solve your problems? Why should you think you deserve something more than people who have simply worked harder, for longer, and risked more?

I think what people disparage and generally find funny is the wealthy, often retired homeowners in areas like Oak Bay and Fairfield who are putting up signs that say "SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD" and expecting sympathy.  These are people who hit the real estate jack pot and now don't want any newcomers "ruining" it with a little density.   Sorry, if you don't like new density in your neighborhood move to Uplands.  What, you can't afford it????


  • John M. likes this

#1622 punk cannonballer

punk cannonballer
  • Member
  • 239 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 10:02 AM

I think what people disparage and generally find funny is the wealthy, often retired homeowners in areas like Oak Bay and Fairfield who are putting up signs that say "SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD" and expecting sympathy.

 

I think we can all agree that those people can go F themselves.

I'm fully aware that I sound like a cranky old guy yelling at people to get off my lawn, but if you're expecting public policy to result in more opportunities for home ownership (as opposed to more housing) that's a fundamentally entitled position. You're expecting the city to provide your cohort with a competitive advantage. People with bachelor's degrees in history don't often win that battle. 

Creating ownership is fundamentally different than creating housing - and in fact, the capitalization of land is precisely what has led to inequality in the first place.



#1623 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 5,444 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 10:12 AM

I think we can all agree that those people can go F themselves.

I'm fully aware that I sound like a cranky old guy yelling at people to get off my lawn, but if you're expecting public policy to result in more opportunities for home ownership (as opposed to more housing) that's a fundamentally entitled position. You're expecting the city to provide your cohort with a competitive advantage. People with bachelor's degrees in history don't often win that battle. 

Creating ownership is fundamentally different than creating housing - and in fact, the capitalization of land is precisely what has led to inequality in the first place.

I would agree, all they need to do is co-operate in terms of zoning and approvals, make it easier to build, and get out of the way


  • John M. likes this

#1624 Stephen James

Stephen James

    Stephen James

  • Member
  • 1,022 posts
  • LocationJames Bay, Victoria

Posted 18 May 2018 - 10:13 AM

I know of several high-profile business people in town that are incredibly passionate about the future of Victoria and would certainly run for Council if it was the same part-time position it was decades ago. They have said as much. Unfortunately, it has been turned into a full-time position without equivalent pay. 

 

This presents a significant barrier on two fronts. First, successful business people can't take on a second full-time position if they still want to be involved in their business. Right there you lose a great deal of quality individuals who would make a big difference on Council.

 

Second, it prevents younger people from stepping up to take on the job, because someone in their 20s or 30s just "starting out" in the real world and trying to accrue wealth, save for a home*, and build a stable life is not likely to put their name forward for a $40K (before taxes) position. And we wonder why there's a real lack of younger leadership in this city.

 

*Just kidding, my generation doesn't get to own homes in Victoria. Not unless we spend the next decade or two seriously increasing supply and density. 

When I was young, just starting out, I thought the equivalent of $40,000/year would be wonderful, especially when it included the opportunity to work with many people older and more experienced, from whom I could learn.  Even more, this isn't $40,000/year for a young person to turn a screw - seems to me a role like this is a stepping stone to many larger opportunities.  But maybe things are so different today that I have no real perspective, of course...



#1625 AndrewReeve

AndrewReeve
  • Member
  • 91 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 18 May 2018 - 10:22 AM

I think we can all agree that those people can go F themselves.

I'm fully aware that I sound like a cranky old guy yelling at people to get off my lawn, but if you're expecting public policy to result in more opportunities for home ownership (as opposed to more housing) that's a fundamentally entitled position. You're expecting the city to provide your cohort with a competitive advantage. People with bachelor's degrees in history don't often win that battle. 

Creating ownership is fundamentally different than creating housing - and in fact, the capitalization of land is precisely what has led to inequality in the first place.

 

Well with more supply, there inherently will be more opportunities for people to purchase. But that's beside the point that I'm trying to make here.

 

Creating housing is the priority. People are being squeezed out of the rental market, let alone ownership.

 

Decades of this council scaling back development proposals and delaying projects is the cause of the crunch. 

 

 

RFS: 

I would agree, all they need to do is co-operate in terms of zoning and approvals, make it easier to build, and get out of the way

 

Absolutely agree. The process takes far too long and navigating 650 types of zoning is ridiculous. 


Edited by AndrewReeve, 18 May 2018 - 10:22 AM.

  • Nparker and John M. like this

Andrew J. Reeve
andrewjreeve.ca | @andrewjreeve 


#1626 punk cannonballer

punk cannonballer
  • Member
  • 239 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 10:40 AM

Well with more supply, there inherently will be more opportunities for people to purchase.

 

Eh, not really. With more titled property there's more properties to be purchased, but supply does not equal titled property. Rental really needs to be the policy goal if you're to avoid speculation. There's far more titled property in Vancouver, so by your logic Vancouver should be cheaper. Hold on...looking that up...oh wait, it's not.

We all eagerly await your common-sense solutions to capitalism.


  • Matt R. and Bob Fugger like this

#1627 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 10:41 AM

I think what people disparage and generally find funny is the wealthy, often retired homeowners in areas like Oak Bay and Fairfield who are putting up signs that say "SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD" and expecting sympathy.  These are people who hit the real estate jack pot and now don't want any newcomers "ruining" it with a little density.   Sorry, if you don't like new density in your neighborhood move to Uplands.  What, you can't afford it????

 

Don't agree with your opinion but you have hit the crux of the argument. Who has a say in development in a community? Is it the people who live there or people who want to live there? If you bought a house on a quiet cul du sac should you have the expectation that the area will remain as it was when you purchased, or should you expect it to be rezoned for higher density without your say?. 

 

I don't know many people who own houses in Oak Bay who started there. Most people started with small condos or houses in less desirable areas and then upgraded over time as their jobs and careers supported it. I get that the experiential lifestyle is more desirable these days then incurring mortgage debt straight out of university or college, but those are trade offs that people have been making for decades. I don't recall 20 years ago having people spending their youth travelling the world or partying every night and then complaining that they couldn't afford their first home being on the waterfront in Oak Bay.

 

Everything in life is cyclical. Now that housing prices have shot up over the past 2-3 years the market is adjusting with more capacity. In another 2-3 years we will probably have too much capacity and there will be a correction. The problem occurs when Government tries to artificially impact the market and that is what throws things off kilter. 


Edited by spanky123, 18 May 2018 - 10:41 AM.

  • rjag likes this

#1628 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 18 May 2018 - 10:47 AM

Not once have I said I deserve or am entitled to anything. Never asked for a hand-out. I am advocating for public policy that I genuinely believe will be best for the future of the city.

 

Hmm, except you kinda did, though...

 

*Just kidding, my generation doesn't get to own homes in Victoria.



#1629 punk cannonballer

punk cannonballer
  • Member
  • 239 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 10:50 AM

Decades of this council scaling back development proposals and delaying projects is the cause of the crunch.

 

It's part of it., absolutely. I guess I'm interested in how you plan on changing this. Political power in Victoria is concentrated in the people who live in the City of Victoria, and the Council hang-ups come from the constituency. I'd be absolutely over the moon if Council abandoned their exhaustive consultation with the community associations and built with aplomb. I'd also be interested in all the different members of Council that replaced them after they did that.



#1630 Stephen James

Stephen James

    Stephen James

  • Member
  • 1,022 posts
  • LocationJames Bay, Victoria

Posted 18 May 2018 - 10:52 AM

I know of several high-profile business people in town that are incredibly passionate about the future of Victoria and would certainly run for Council if it was the same part-time position it was decades ago. They have said as much. Unfortunately, it has been turned into a full-time position without equivalent pay. 

 

This presents a significant barrier on two fronts. First, successful business people can't take on a second full-time position if they still want to be involved in their business. Right there you lose a great deal of quality individuals who would make a big difference on Council.

 

Second, it prevents younger people from stepping up to take on the job, because someone in their 20s or 30s just "starting out" in the real world and trying to accrue wealth, save for a home*, and build a stable life is not likely to put their name forward for a $40K (before taxes) position. And we wonder why there's a real lack of younger leadership in this city.

 

*Just kidding, my generation doesn't get to own homes in Victoria. Not unless we spend the next decade or two seriously increasing supply and density. 

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with ANOTHER point here.

 

Public "service", as an idea, comes from the thought (crazy-maybe) that we have a civic responsibility to contribute to the management and decisions that make our society work.  This seems to have become public "entitlement".  Ok... change happens.

 

But to suggest that successful business people can't contribute is not even true.  There are at least two people on council, clearly described as effective, who are also doing very well in their private sector, full-time positions.  Whether you agree with their points of view is not relevant.  This is a city of 75,000 for goodness sake.

 

Your statements are particularly worrying given we have 0 effective governance in the area of council and CRD wages.  For someone with a self-described (not you, some councillors) liberal, left leaning, "enlightened" perspective to suggest that other entities are corrupt in their decision-making and, without a second thought, defend the fact they decide their own salaries??? Its just embarrassing.

 

Smarter people know that perceptions is what you manage, and actively.  There is no difference between the corruption described when a board of males congratulates themselves for being well-managed, a police review decides their own has done no wrong when the bullet went through the perp's back, when a government decides its right to use lethal force to effect change in another country for its own benefit.  All of it is the same - conflict of interest.  

 

I've never seen so much willful ignorance on the subject of conflict of interest, as here.



#1631 Stephen James

Stephen James

    Stephen James

  • Member
  • 1,022 posts
  • LocationJames Bay, Victoria

Posted 18 May 2018 - 11:00 AM

They were talking about this on CFAX today and it was mentioned that if there was a candidate at this stage, it would probably be a gorilla style campaign.  There was some discussion about someone running against the bike lanes for example.  I personally don't think they would rip out the existing lanes, although if they mess up Dallas road or Wharf street bad enough, who knows;

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...venue-1.3142737

Bike lanes, and the divisiveness that came from mismanagement of the same, is how Toronto ended up with a dead cyclist activist (no charges laid) and Rob Ford.  

Ford promised to remove the Jarvis bike lane, and did.  The Jarvis bike lane was a horrible decision - to take an already narrow street that was already parking lot 7-9 am and 5-7 pm, make it narrower and more difficult, when it was clearly a main artery for a huge pop coming from the immediate north and east - in the face of massive opposition, every step of the way.  Not too smart.

I'm sure we've all learned from this lesson...?



#1632 AndrewReeve

AndrewReeve
  • Member
  • 91 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 18 May 2018 - 11:12 AM

Hmm, except you kinda did, though...

 

Amazing how a cheeky asterisk comment in small text has exploded into an entire debate resulting in calling me entitled. Clearly a dark sense of humour about the realities of the housing market was unappreciated by some folks here.

 

I'm not asking for policy to result in me owning. Rental is definitely the goal. There are smart policy options that will help alleviate the affordability crisis. Reform zoning, expedite the development process, stop electing people that cater to the vocal minority/radical NIMBY's... oh, and look at reducing 13 municipalities to perhaps 4 to see some effective regional strategies.


  • Nparker, Bob Fugger, tedward and 2 others like this

Andrew J. Reeve
andrewjreeve.ca | @andrewjreeve 


#1633 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 5,444 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 11:17 AM

Why exactly is rental the goal?  Zone the crap out of the land, eliminate the ALR, cut away as much red tape and bureaucratic sh*t as possible, give tax breaks, waive fees, build new roads and highways, whatever it takes, and build, baby build until "middle class" homes are affordable again!  (I realize that this is not all under the purview of the CoV)


  • jasmineshinga likes this

#1634 Stephen James

Stephen James

    Stephen James

  • Member
  • 1,022 posts
  • LocationJames Bay, Victoria

Posted 18 May 2018 - 11:18 AM

I do. Of course, they have professional degrees and are therefore bumped into the 'privileged' category and don't count.

I'm a little older than you but I grew up in Victoria, did a degree at UVic, worked until I had some money for grad school, and met my wife when she had been accepted into grad school as well. We did long distance for 3 years and then both found jobs in Calgary for more than 4 years, living in rentals, eating **** at stressful jobs and saving for a down payment for a house in Victoria. We paid just under $600k for a place in Jubilee about 5 years ago. There are still homes in Victoria for $600k but they probably don't have granite counter-tops. Of course, it also simply needs to be Victoria? Otherwise you've failed?

Here's a 3br 2ba home in the City of Victoria. It's pretty much what I paid for my house in 2011: https://www.realtor....Columbia-V8S4B9

 

What's the problem with it? Not good enough? Well, my house isn't nearly as nice as my parents' house either. But it's what I can afford.

I've had people (notably one on this blog) refer to me disparagingly as 'the homeowner class'. Sure. Are you saying it's not your fault that you've done a bachelors' degree and probably nary ventured more than a few blocks from your parents' house and you're waiting for the city to solve your problems? Why should you think you deserve something more than people who have simply worked harder, for longer, and risked more?

This is hard for me.  

 

I'm 54 and its easy for me to feel the same.  I moved to a very expensive city in the early 90s and wondered how we'd ever make it work.  We lived in a tiny, very moldy, cold, wet, dirt cheap one-bedroom for 2 years and saved 50% of what we earned.  This gave us enough for a cheap townhouse far from the centre of town.  Now I have a detached home in JB, 25 years later and feel quite fortunate.  I don't remember ever thinking I should be able to buy the home in the nicest part or, more important to me at the time, the more convenient part of town.

 

I hear some, not all, people who are that age today saying its no longer possible to do this and I don't know if that's 100% true, slightly true, mostly true.  I DO remember the same discussions in the media about home ownership becoming unaffordable at the time.



#1635 punk cannonballer

punk cannonballer
  • Member
  • 239 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 11:19 AM

Amazing how a cheeky asterisk comment in small text has exploded into an entire debate resulting in calling me entitled. Clearly a dark sense of humour about the realities of the housing market was unappreciated by some folks here.

 

I'm not asking for policy to result in me owning. Rental is definitely the goal. There are smart policy options that will help alleviate the affordability crisis. Reform zoning, expedite the development process, stop electing people that cater to the vocal minority/radical NIMBY's... oh, and look at reducing 13 municipalities to perhaps 4 to see some effective regional strategies.

 

You forgot to add that everyone should first get in a big circle, hold hands, wish upon a star and dance around the revered Salish Unicorn.



#1636 punk cannonballer

punk cannonballer
  • Member
  • 239 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 11:21 AM

Why exactly is rental the goal?

 

It eliminates speculation.



#1637 Stephen James

Stephen James

    Stephen James

  • Member
  • 1,022 posts
  • LocationJames Bay, Victoria

Posted 18 May 2018 - 11:22 AM

Eh, not really. With more titled property there's more properties to be purchased, but supply does not equal titled property. Rental really needs to be the policy goal if you're to avoid speculation. There's far more titled property in Vancouver, so by your logic Vancouver should be cheaper. Hold on...looking that up...oh wait, it's not.

We all eagerly await your common-sense solutions to capitalism.

Your reasoning misses the second axis in supply/demand - completely.

Try again.



#1638 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 11:22 AM

I actually don't know a single person around my age that owns property in the City of Victoria. Langford, Sooke, sure. Not Victoria. That's just your anecdote versus mine I suppose. Glad you agree that we have supply, density, and affordability issues. Maybe we can discuss the real issues then?

 

How old are you?



#1639 RFS

RFS
  • Member
  • 5,444 posts

Posted 18 May 2018 - 11:23 AM

It eliminates speculation.

Whatever that is supposed to mean.  So is a society where only the very richest own their home and everyone else is a renting serf what we want?  Maximum home ownership should be the goal


  • jonny likes this

#1640 Stephen James

Stephen James

    Stephen James

  • Member
  • 1,022 posts
  • LocationJames Bay, Victoria

Posted 18 May 2018 - 11:29 AM

Don't agree with your opinion but you have hit the crux of the argument. Who has a say in development in a community? Is it the people who live there or people who want to live there? If you bought a house on a quiet cul du sac should you have the expectation that the area will remain as it was when you purchased, or should you expect it to be rezoned for higher density without your say?. 

 

I don't know many people who own houses in Oak Bay who started there. Most people started with small condos or houses in less desirable areas and then upgraded over time as their jobs and careers supported it. I get that the experiential lifestyle is more desirable these days then incurring mortgage debt straight out of university or college, but those are trade offs that people have been making for decades. I don't recall 20 years ago having people spending their youth travelling the world or partying every night and then complaining that they couldn't afford their first home being on the waterfront in Oak Bay.

 

Everything in life is cyclical. Now that housing prices have shot up over the past 2-3 years the market is adjusting with more capacity. In another 2-3 years we will probably have too much capacity and there will be a correction. The problem occurs when Government tries to artificially impact the market and that is what throws things off kilter. 

"If you bought a house on a quiet cul du sac should you have the expectation that the area will remain as it was when you purchased"  Why?

 

I own a very expensive home.  How does that entitle me to have disproportionate influence on my neighbourhood, specifically to protect my own interests.  Renters or would be renters dont have this opportunity.  A special interest group, called homeowners, gets to decide density, and therefore they have the power.  This is how we ended up here.  The "capitalizing property" is more confused BS.  

 

Its simple math: picture two moving sidewalks, one faster than the other.  The faster one is bringing the people moving here and the slower one is bringing new apartments and houses.  What do you see the the end of both sidewalks?  More people than homes.  Why is this happening?



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users