Jump to content

      












Photo

British Columbia real-estate and foreign buyer taxes


  • Please log in to reply
961 replies to this topic

#81 North Shore

North Shore
  • Member
  • 2,085 posts

Posted 16 July 2016 - 09:26 AM

 

The implication is that these are all foreign owners who have mega-bucks and aren't paying any taxes. Of course they miss the fact that granny has lived in her home for 40 years and does indeed have a low income and can't afford the tax. Basically it is just the NDP saying tax the rich and give us the money.

 

A similar issue came up ~ 20? years ago in Vancouver, when house prices first began to rise dramatically - Granny, on a fixed income (as if the rest of us aren't on a semi-fixed income) not being able to pay her property tax, and thus losing her house.  The simple solution, implemented in some munis, was to defer property tax until the house was sold.  That could be done in this case also.


Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?

#82 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 11,220 posts

Posted 16 July 2016 - 07:53 PM

Are you sure about this? I though that it was basic fire code, which is mostly national, that all bedrooms must have egress windows. Perhaps I am thinking of houses, or perhaps the other municipalities you note are in the states or overseas?

I am sure about seeing it on the Global 6 PM news yesterday or the day before. They clearly stated that both Surrey and Victoria allowed it. Then they did "man on the street" interviews asking people if they would use one. I find the Global site very difficult to search for news items unless they are featured items however. Perhaps someone with better search skills can pull it out.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#83 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 11,220 posts

Posted 16 July 2016 - 08:22 PM

OK found it. They interview Jon Stovall as well. It starts at the 12 minute mark.

 

http://globalnews.ca...t 6 for july 14


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#84 SusanJones

SusanJones
  • Member
  • 249 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 01:00 PM

Regional mayors reject Vancouver’s vacancy tax, propose non-resident tax

FRANCES BULA AND IAN BAILEY

VANCOUVER — Contributed to The Globe and Mail

Published 

Tuesday, Jul. 19, 2016 9:23PM EDT

Last updated 

 

Tuesday, Jul. 19, 2016 9:23PM EDT

Mayors in cities neighbouring Vancouver say its vacancy tax aimed at reining in housing prices will be a bureaucratic nightmare and they won’t impose it, leading to concerns there will be a patchwork of regulations across the region.

Instead, regional mayors say, it would be easier to administer a non-resident tax that would directly tackle the issue of foreign investment.

Next Monday, the B.C. government is recalling the legislature for a brief, rare summer sitting to amend provincial law to give Vancouver the authority to impose the tax after Mayor Gregor Robertson lobbied hard for the solution.



#85 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 69,404 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 09:07 PM

Robertson will never go along with a tax that is too easily identified as being ethnically motivated even though his vacant home tax was also targeted at foreigners, albeit in a more PC way.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#86 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 09:41 PM

A foreign tax is illogical in a city that is over 50% first generation or immigrant. Besides foreigners aren't the issue. The issue is there is only so much land, and so many housing units, and with high demand, all units should be utilized.

#87 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 09:50 PM

A foreign tax is illogical in a city that is over 50% first generation or immigrant. Besides foreigners aren't the issue. The issue is there is only so much land, and so many housing units, and with high demand, all units should be utilized.

 

The thing is though, there is enough land for another 10M people, at least.  See all the grey area?

 

.

 

GreaterVancouver1.jpg

 

 

 

Heck, you could probably build 1M units just on the UBC endowment lands.  It's bigger than the downtown peninsula.  Or remove a tiny bit of ALR in Aldergrove/Abbotsford.

 

screenshot-www.google.ca 2016-07-20 22-48-40.jpg

 

There is lots of land, but so little will.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#88 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 09:56 PM

Maybe we should buy Point Roberts.  See how low density and depressed that place is?  It could be kick-ass as part of Canada.

 

BONUS:  Everyone that lives there can become US-Canadian joint citizens.

 

PLUS, we can make it Canada's "special economic zone", with relaxed rules on banking etc.  Plus all-inclusive resorts on the "coasts", to compete with Mexico-bound travellers.

 

screenshot-www.google.ca 2016-07-20 22-52-47.jpg

 

These two are the same scale:

 

screenshot-www.google.ca 2016-07-20 22-58-52.jpg screenshot-www.google.ca 2016-07-20 22-58-05.jpg

 


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#89 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:06 PM

Or just build a whole new municipality, right here.  You know how awesome it would be to design from scratch, a new mountainside city capable of holding > 1M people?  Amazing!

 

I've even taken the liberty of starting the design with the big highway down to the TCH, and some other main feeder roads.  No charge for this detailed draft, it really only took me a couple hours, I'm willing to thrown that in for the betterment of the province.

 

screenshot-www.google.ca 2016-07-20 23-03-41.jpeg


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#90 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 21 July 2016 - 07:12 AM

Up not out is the way to go.  



#91 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 8,578 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 21 July 2016 - 07:12 AM

Jeez, you just want to throw a new municipality on the side of a mountain? A lot of the land you're referencing is prohibitively expensive to develop (ie. mountains), politically impossible (Point Roberts), protected for a very good reason (ALR). However, you aren't incorrect in there being plenty of land, I'm sure plenty could be identified. I would first target ALR land that is unsuitable for typical lower mainland farm uses.



#92 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 21 July 2016 - 07:23 AM

Up not out is the way to go.  

 

I'm fine with that too.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#93 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 21 July 2016 - 07:25 AM

Jeez, you just want to throw a new municipality on the side of a mountain? A lot of the land you're referencing is prohibitively expensive to develop (ie. mountains), politically impossible (Point Roberts), protected for a very good reason (ALR). However, you aren't incorrect in there being plenty of land, I'm sure plenty could be identified. I would first target ALR land that is unsuitable for typical lower mainland farm uses.

 

I'm not sure that land is prohibitively expensive to develop, it has nearly no value now.  And if you can get $500,000 per average city house lot, or $4M for an apartment site, that's good cash to bust roads through.  


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#94 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,234 posts

Posted 21 July 2016 - 08:59 AM

Extending development in North Vancouver at the 600 metre level eastward all the way to Indian Arm isn't the worst idea for opening up new space. It's not that far from the core and is consistent with the way the rest of the North Shore has developed. Beats developing remaining farmland in  Richmond that will be underwater in 100 years or less.


  • VicHockeyFan likes this

#95 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 21 July 2016 - 09:02 AM

Beats developing remaining farmland in  Richmond that will be underwater in 100 years or less.

 

Why not develop that with homes on concrete stilts then?  Then it could be the North American Venice.  Unless the earthquake comes first.  I'm not sure what the European comparison would be then.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#96 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 8,578 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 21 July 2016 - 09:10 AM

Why not develop that with homes on concrete stilts then?  Then it could be the North American Venice.  Unless the earthquake comes first.  I'm not sure what the European comparison would be then.

London circa 1945.


  • Mike K. likes this

#97 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,470 posts

Posted 21 July 2016 - 01:54 PM

A foreign tax is illogical in a city that is over 50% first generation or immigrant. Besides foreigners aren't the issue. The issue is there is only so much land, and so many housing units, and with high demand, all units should be utilized.

 

Foreign investment most definitely is the problem.  There is no way in hell the Vancouver market has reached the heights it has without it.



#98 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,470 posts

Posted 21 July 2016 - 01:55 PM

Why not develop that with homes on concrete stilts then?  Then it could be the North American Venice.  Unless the earthquake comes first.  I'm not sure what the European comparison would be then.

 

Pompei?



#99 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 21 July 2016 - 01:58 PM

Pompei?

 

Ya, I guess I'll accept that.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#100 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,036 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 22 July 2016 - 12:52 PM

The problem in Metro Vancouver is that the region is growing but the total number of single family homes has barely increased for close to two decades.   There is a serious shortage of singe family homes.   Meanwhile the municipalities of Metro Vancouver are getting in the way of more houses.  There are many options for places more house could go but the restrictions on more development is dramatic.   

 

One example of a delayed developed is the Spetifore Lands in Tsawwassen, it took decades to get approval for this development.   This was first proposed when I was in high school in Tsawwassen in the early 1980s.   It will only add 950 houses

 

Metro Vancouver needs to bite the bullet and find land to allow for 5,000 new single family homes to be constructed per year.   This about 500 to 600 acres per year, or less than one square mile,  You could host that all in Richmond for the next decade and take up 17% of the space of the municipality.

 

It means taking land out of the ALR or develop the land to the north of Coquitlam and Pitt Meadows

 

Large areas in western south Surrey are large properties of about an acre in size - non agricultural land.  That are could several thousand more houses.

 

One last place a lot of houses could go is on the Tsawwassen First Nation Treaty Settlement Lands



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.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users