3079 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

News flash:

The cities with the highest density in North America are the most expensive.

Los Angeles
San Fransisco
Miami
New York



It’s not rocket science. Tragically only one of our council members is an economist. The rest have few skills. They have never really had real private sector jobs.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 03 June 2022 - 01:24 PM.

[dasmo]

It's not rocket science. Real estate Is priced by it's highest value use. This was illustrated with the Era. Condos were selling for $250K then someone listed an AirBnB business for $350k. Then they all became $350k. 

 

More on this basic concept here. 

 

Broad Upzoning Makes Existing Housing More Expensive
Let’s spell it out. Politicians lead people to believe buying half a property will be more affordable. Unfortunately, broad upzoning doesn’t actually build homes. It only increases the value of every lot’s potential to build homes. Where there was one house, you can now build two.

Existing homes are immediately worth the value of the maximum zoning, less the cost of knocking it down and building two. Every property now requires a real estate developer to get the full value of use. Since real estate developers don’t do it for free, you also need to inject profit into the cost as well. In short, politicians increased the cost of housing, without actually building more housing, all in the name of affordability.

 

https://betterdwelli...snt-add-supply/

Edited by dasmo, 03 June 2022 - 01:17 PM.

[dasmo]

It's not rocket science. Real estate Is priced by it's highest value use. This was illustrated with the Era. Condos were selling for $250K then someone listed an AirBnB business for $350k. Then they all became $350k. 

 

More on this basic concept here. 

 

Broad Upzoning Makes Existing Housing More Expensive
Let’s spell it out. Politicians lead people to believe buying half a property will be more affordable. Unfortunately, broad upzoning doesn’t actually build homes. It only increases the value of every lot’s potential to build homes. Where there was one house, you can now build two.

Existing homes are immediately worth the value of the maximum zoning, less the cost of knocking it down and building two. Every property now requires a real estate developer to get the full value of use. Since real estate developers don’t do it for free, you also need to inject profit into the cost as well. In short, politicians increased the cost of housing, without actually building more housing, all in the name of affordability.

 

https://betterdwelli...snt-add-supply/

Has this been addressed at all? 

[Nparker]

Has this been addressed at all? 

Perhaps not by those who are entirely dogma-driven.

[spanky123]

Why is moving something to public hearing such a big uproar? This is not approved until the final vote. Any of the councillors can change their mind based on information and feedback they read or hear between now and that final vote.

 

The uproar was that there was very little time between various stages of the process. I believe that even Stephen commented that it would be unreasonable for the average person to review all of the material prior to any decision. Those of us who are cynical surmise that this is commonly done to prevent any informed objection to various proposals Helps wants to ram through.

 

The proposal that was passed asked staff to engage with the community and seek additional feedback before this process continued. 

[spanky123]

Much of the conversation around MM involves housing prices. Although Helps acknowledged during the last COTW meeting that affordable housing was not part of MM, Eby of course stepped in after the motion failed and suggested you would be able to buy a townhouse for $500K.

 

I know that City staff have said that upzoning property has no impact on property values but do you know Stephen if any councilor has spoken to BC Assessment? Seems to me that since are the ones that ultimately provide land and housing prices, they could settle this argument once and for all.

 

If any VV readers know of any properties that have been upzoned for duplexes+ over the past couple of years that would also be a good data point by comparing tax role values.

Edited by spanky123, 03 June 2022 - 02:40 PM.

[Ismo07]

News flash:

The cities with the highest density in North America are the most expensive.

Los Angeles
San Fransisco
Miami
New York



It’s not rocket science. Tragically only one of our council members is an economist. The rest have few skills. They have never really had real private sector jobs.

 

Is that a chicken and egg thing?  I'm not sure that density means higher prices automatically... I think there are a lot of examples.

 

February 2022 data shows the average residential house price in BC's capital hit $1,041,068—a jump of around $175,000 from the previous February when the average price was $865,235.  In Victoria, the land area is 696.15 square kilometres with a population density of 495.0 persons per square kilometre

 

The average price of a home in Calgary was $532,093 in April 2022. Currently, it compares to be 4.6% higher than it was in the same month of ...   The land area of Calgary (City) is 825.56 square kilometres and the population density was 1,501.1 people per square kilometre.

 

There have to be many other factors...  Eventually a price is simply too high for buyers to buy it...  I find this a hard thing to pinpoint..  

Edited by Ismo07, 03 June 2022 - 02:55 PM.

[Mike K.]

Your numbers are wonky but let’s break this down on simple terms.

If you’re going to extrapolate Victoria as 696 sq km (CoV is just 19 sq km), you need to extrapolate Calgary for its census metro area too. Which is 5,100 sq km, not 825.

696 sq km and $1.04M vs. 5,100 sq km and $532k (at 825 sq km, what is it at 5,100?) = Victoria has a developable land shortage, therefore it has outrageous real-estate prices for a small city with no industry and low incomes. Calgary has industry, high incomes, and could afford much higher real-estate than we can.

We are not going to be solving anything with missing middle if our target is affordability. It’s just another stirring of the same pot with ultra-expensive housing as it’s end-product, eventually.

[Barrrister]

I fear that the long term end product with be bland rows of six plexes and few townhouses. Neighborhoods like Fernwood will lose their charm and character to be replaced with an increasing British council house look. It will make money for the developers but it will transform much of the city and strip future councils of control of the process.

 

Little has been said about the fact that this type of rezoning is next to umpossible to change.

[Victoria Watcher]

I DO wish people would reach out to me and ask questions directly rather than sit in their armchairs and make up conspiracies.

I will explain MY reason for reconsidering the motion at the June 9 meeting. There is no pressure here.

There is no “flip flop”. People need to understand the process of council. A decision on Missing Middle will only be made following a public hearing.

I reiterate my position on significant policy change, “When we bring significant policy change to you, we will provide time and opportunity for proper engagement.”

If any side of this issue reads anything into my position than this statement, they’re delusional.

For your information, since I voted to refer the motion, I received more emails social media responses, and calls supporting that position than those who were opposed.

My phone numbers and emails are
Public - you can always reach out and I will respond.

Thank you

S

Seems odd. He received mostly support for his position, yet he intends an about-face this Thursday.

Reading the motion by this councillor, all we can gather is that he intends to reverse his vote.

If that’s not the case, the public would like to know - now, not on Thursday moments before a vote takes place on the motion - what the intention of this motion is.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 07 June 2022 - 03:16 AM.

[Barrrister]

Andrews really is starting to remind me of Helps in terms of how he is acting. Wont tell you now why I am changing my vote, dont want your input on this decision before I vote. I am disappointed and am starting to feel manipulated.

[Mike K.]

It’s been made pretty clear that C. Andrew wants to hear the public out at a public hearing, and wanted more time for constituents to learn about the plans.

I don’t know what else we can expect from an elected official who has to represent all constituents and not just special interest groups. Yes, likely many of the councillor’s supporters are going to be against this plan if for not other reason that it’s roll-out was rushed and premature, but council’s job is to hear people out and not close their ears (we’ve had too much of that 2014 onwards).

[Victoria Watcher]

This is the largest land use decision ever made in the City. The engagement should include a mailer to every resident or homeowner. Not 121 people filling out a survey.

At least in the past there would be a newspaper notification. But now less than 5,000 CoV residents even get a physical TC copy.

The engagement here has not been enough.

[Mike K.]

I agree it has not been enough. The outcome of the engagement could actually point to that.

If developers say this is unworkable what is the ultimate end-game? City hall says it doesn’t know.

[Victoria Watcher]

If developers say this is unworkable what is the ultimate end-game? City hall says it doesn’t know.

 

That's why you PILOT the project first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTENTION all councilors reading this:

PILOT the program in the community where the association most welcomes it. 2-3 years. See what plays out. If it's wonderful, next term you can extend it further. And when detractors in the extended communities complain, say "look at XYZ community, they have had the program for 2/3 years and [results] has happened".

I've already volunteered North Park, Fernwood, Oaklands, North Jubilee, or Gorge/Burnside. Shop it around, who really wants it?

[spanky123]

^ I don't know if I would trust developer comments as this point as anything more than negotiating tactics. They are arguing to avoid any affordable component, avoid paying for any community amenities and avoid contributing to the housing fund. Of course they would claim that there are no profits to be had. Nevertheless, they are still promoting the change.

[Victoria Watcher]

^ I don't know if I would trust developer comments as this point as anything more than negotiating tactics. They are arguing to avoid any affordable component, avoid paying for any community amenities and avoid contributing to the housing fund. Of course they would claim that there are no profits to be had. Nevertheless, they are still promoting the change.

 

Especially Aryze, Lisa Helps' favourite developer.

[Spy Black]

This is all nothing more than political maneuvering, designed to either position oneself to get re-elected by pandering to ones perceived base, or to effect a position that will allow for a retiring Councilor (willingly or unwillingly) to add something they perceive to be having weight to their resumes list or previous accomplishments, all in service to some unknown future employment opportunity.

 

Anybody who believes that this current Council does anything for the betterment of the majority of Victoria taxpayers is (and please don't take this personally) simply exercising wishful thinking, or being foolish.

 

Every single member of the current Council has demonstrated at one point or another, that they're comfortable with dishonesty, something to consider in every discussion about what might happen in Council chambers.

[Ismo07]

Your numbers are wonky but let’s break this down on simple terms.

If you’re going to extrapolate Victoria as 696 sq km (CoV is just 19 sq km), you need to extrapolate Calgary for its census metro area too. Which is 5,100 sq km, not 825.

696 sq km and $1.04M vs. 5,100 sq km and $532k (at 825 sq km, what is it at 5,100?) = Victoria has a developable land shortage, therefore it has outrageous real-estate prices for a small city with no industry and low incomes. Calgary has industry, high incomes, and could afford much higher real-estate than we can.

We are not going to be solving anything with missing middle if our target is affordability. It’s just another stirring of the same pot with ultra-expensive housing as it’s end-product, eventually.

 

Victoria's isn't just the metro area though... Victoria's metro area is tiny...  

Edited by Ismo07, 08 June 2022 - 08:26 AM.

[dasmo]

She is part of the globalist UN agenda 2030 crowd. I used to like the slogan “think global act local” until I figured out what that meant. When you apply the doublespeak filter to agenda 2030 it’s no wonder there are so many theories about it….

As Mayor of Victoria, British Columbia since 2014, Lisa Helps was elected on a platform to use City Hall and city government as a to help unleash the potential of citizens and local business and to create inclusive, sustainable prosperity. As mayor, she takes inspiration from the UN Sustainable Development Goals, with a particular emphasis on Goal 11, Sustainable Cities and Communities.

https://socialvalue-...lue/lisa-helps/