11779 replies to this topic

[Awaiting Juno]

Great, I can't afford a $1.3M house, or a $3M house. I can afford a $900k townhouse though. And if developers work WITH the community, nothing will ever get done. We need big changes, whatever they end up being, to ensure more density where SFHs currently are. We can't waste time discussing setbacks, or concerns that a project doesn't fit the "neighbourhood character".

 

And really? The dock installed in the gorge? I loved swimming out there during the summer, and judging by the crowds out there, tons of other Victorians did too. That is a bad thing?

 

A generation that failed the marshmallow test. You'd rather have your $900k condo today, in the core - to hell with future you with a wife and kids relegated to the furthest reaches of town because you need a SFH because the kids are loud and have stuff, and the dog needs a yard. A family that could have afforded the $1.3M but has no hope in hell of affording the $3M. To hell with that person juggling a job, a commute, and daycare costs. Nope - lets relegate SFH entirely out of reach of families within the core by exploding their prices completely out of reach while not requiring developers to pass on any of their cost advantages to consumers. Or maybe we continue to have SFH and other restrictive types of zoning to ensure that we get a mix of housing in accordance with community desires and needs. Maybe we get a little more creative and push to make conditional zoning a reality. Maybe we seek to reduce the cost and delay of development while we respect our communities. Maybe we reign in the amount of profit that developers can realize (after all, exerting negative price pressure is supposed to be what happens with increased density).  Then maybe we can have families (from the entire spectrum) within our communities, maybe we can even have a complete property ladder.

[phx]

Your property taxes are not remotely close to the housing gains over the last few years, like maybe 2% of your annual gains.

Disingenuous and manipulative comments like that are part of the reason you are not being well received here.

[Nparker]

It's not the city's job to provide affordable housing, that is up to the province and the federal government...

I agree, but PPP was implying that increased property values have resulted in no additional taxation revenue that can be directed towards affordable housing initiatives, and this simply is not true.

Case in point, the Property Transfer Tax has been a huge windfall for provincial government coffers for over a decade now.

The general property transfer tax rate is:

1% of the fair market value up to and including $200,000

2% of the fair market value greater than $200,000 and up to and including $2,000,000

3% of the fair market value greater than $2,000,000
 

Further 2% on residential property over $3,000,000
If the property has residential property worth over $3,000,000, a further 2% tax will be applied to the residential property value greater than $3,000,000.

Edited by Nparker, 07 December 2021 - 12:37 PM.

[marks_28]

A generation that failed the marshmallow test. You'd rather have your $900k condo today, in the core - to hell with future you with a wife and kids relegated to the furthest reaches of town because you need a SFH because the kids are loud and have stuff, and the dog needs a yard. A family that could have afforded the $1.3M but has no hope in hell of affording the $3M. To hell with that person juggling a job, a commute, and daycare costs. Nope - lets relegate SFH entirely out of reach of families within the core by exploding their prices completely out of reach while not requiring developers to pass on any of their cost advantages to consumers. Or maybe we continue to have SFH and other restrictive types of zoning to ensure that we get a mix of housing in accordance with community desires and needs. Maybe we get a little more creative and push to make conditional zoning a reality. Maybe we seek to reduce the cost and delay of development while we respect our communities. Maybe we reign in the amount of profit that developers can realize (after all, exerting negative price pressure is supposed to be what happens with increased density).  Then maybe we can have families (from the entire spectrum) within our communities, maybe we can even have a complete property ladder.

 

Well, I'd rather stay in my condo now until I had a need for a SFH, which will likely happen one day. And you're right, I probably could afford $1.3M in that time, but I think we're both kidding ourselves if we think that $1.3M house will still be $1.3M in a few years time. Maybe it'll be $1.6M by then, $1.7M. Either way, it will likely have far outpaced any earnings increases I'll have had in that time period. So maybe a townhome is more likely in that future scenario. And I would, and I'm sure many others would as well, rather live in a townhome in the city than a SFH in Metchosin. So yeah, maybe one family no longer gets the SFH that was once on the site, but instead there are now 20 families that get their homes there instead. Townhomes can be a great option, it doesn't need to be SFH or bust. And if you're living close to the core, we need to see more of those options.

[Awaiting Juno]

Well, I'd rather stay in my condo now until I had a need for a SFH, which will likely happen one day. And you're right, I probably could afford $1.3M in that time, but I think we're both kidding ourselves if we think that $1.3M house will still be $1.3M in a few years time. Maybe it'll be $1.6M by then, $1.7M. Either way, it will likely have far outpaced any earnings increases I'll have had in that time period. So maybe a townhome is more likely in that future scenario. And I would, and I'm sure many others would as well, rather live in a townhome in the city than a SFH in Metchosin. So yeah, maybe one family no longer gets the SFH that was once on the site, but instead there are now 20 families that get their homes there instead. Townhomes can be a great option, it doesn't need to be SFH or bust. And if you're living close to the core, we need to see more of those options.

 

Townhomes can be a great option, as can SFH and if we really want to beat the "we need diversity drum" - we need to recognize that having SFH's in our neighbourhoods is a part of that diversity, and the zoning that governs land use has impacts on the value of that land.  I disagree with missing middle, because it says townhouses and apartments for ALL - and will put SFH's out of reach while there's no assurance that affordability of the new missing middle will follow. 

[marks_28]

This type of initiative has been done recently in other cities as well. Is there data on median SFH price increases once the policy was implemented?

[PPPdev]

Disingenuous and manipulative comments like that are part of the reason you are not being well received here.

 

How so? Unrealized wealth is still wealth. You can take out a line of credit against housing appreciated value, that is wealth. When you sell, there is wealth. You won't find anywhere where I said people should be penalized for this. My point is that receiving untaxed wealth through appreciation and opposing housing that firms up this wealth isn't good policy in dealing with a housing crisis.

[PPPdev]

Dismissal of criticism. Par for the course. I've demonstrated that Aryze's tactics with respect to the city and zoning are aggressive and cause an anti-developer attitude to form. We need housing, some density is definitely desired. We need developers to work WITH the community and we need our city to be a place people want to make their lives. We do need a property ladder, and we need much better policy all around. 

 

AwaitingJuno, the thread has been largely decent save for a few jabs here and there about people trying to have a shared understanding of housing policy related to Victoria. We've been probing and asking questions of the other members of this forum. We've pushed back a bit to try and foster critical thinking of all of our positions, for the health of a significant policy.

 

You chose to chime in out of the gates with very targeted attacks and that's sad because these are important conversations.

 

There was another path here, one of collegial and shared learning. I'll give you an example:

 

"Aryze, we dont see eye to eye on everything and I hate your company but in your experience trying to build townhouses, what are some key barriers to achieving affordability?"

 

We've sat on three national CMHC panels related to policy reform for Missing Middle, we build more of it then most, we are board members of non-profits, urban planners, we partner with non-profits, we helped write some inclusionary covenant programs. Whether you like us or not, we have value to add to the discourse and policy reform that is so badly needed.

 

 

It seems our welcome here has run out so we'll conclude our involvement, it has been an interesting exercise, hopefully we all learned something 

[Awaiting Juno]

How so? Unrealized wealth is still wealth. You can take out a line of credit against housing appreciated value, that is wealth. When you sell, there is wealth. You won't find anywhere where I said people should be penalized for this. My point is that receiving untaxed wealth through appreciation and opposing housing that firms up this wealth isn't good policy in dealing with a housing crisis.

 

So are you against TFSA's too - which are far more liquid and far less emotional? I mean these are people's homes, their neighbourhoods - this is a critical and intimate part of people's lives. This is HOME or does that mean nothing to you? 

 

Cram as many units as possible, charge what the market will bare - ignore all who dare criticize your approach, and declare you're fighting racism and saving the environment by providing a townhouse at 90% of the cost of a SFH while expanding the lot coverage from 0.4 to 0.8 or more. Who needs grass and trees in cities anyways? Kids don't need yards when parks are known to be so incredibly safe and free from hazards.

[m3m]

A generation that failed the marshmallow test. You'd rather have your $900k condo today, in the core - to hell with future you with a wife and kids relegated to the furthest reaches of town because you need a SFH because the kids are loud and have stuff, and the dog needs a yard. 

 

 

That's pretty rude. 

[Awaiting Juno]

That's pretty rude. 

 

Recognizing that sometimes you can't get what you want, where you want, at the price you want, when you want it? My apologies. It isn't SFH zoning that is the root of all that confounds current want-to-be home buyers in Victoria, the housing market in Victoria is nothing short of brutal (both owning and renting) - for a myriad of reasons. The missing middle policy isn't the panacea it's been made out to be and won't address the fundamental brokeness that abounds.

[Nparker]

...The missing middle policy isn't the panacea it's been made out to be and won't address the fundamental brokenness that abounds.

Oh come now, I am sure it will be every bit as effective as all those provincially purchased housing units have been at ending homelessness, although perhaps not as successful as safe injection sites have been at curbing overdoses.

[A Girl is No one]

Exactly

[LJ]

Just build some of these and get it over with...

 

 

 

https://www.google.c...QAAAAAdAAAAABAO

[Banksy]

Not sure a single citation is enough to refute a policy reform. Our Rhodo project in Gonzales took a $3.2m SF property and built 22 townhouses, 2 x $325k, 14 x $850k, 5 x $1.1m, 1 x $1.4m

All while providing new warranty housing, underground parking, higher efficiency, in a compact neighbourhood full of amenities and transportation options.

This is good urbanism and how our city needs to grow

Of all the places you could have opened your showroom for Rhodo you chose the centre of Oak Bay Village.

Evidently your target market isn’t the North Park Twitter bullies that you purport to build housing for. If I understand things right the plebs get your rentals and the rich Oak Bay crowd gets your infill condos and townhomes in the most desirable neighbourhoods of Victoria that they rent to the plebs. Go go housing equity Aryze!

Edited by Banksy, 07 December 2021 - 08:32 PM.

[Nparker]

...Evidently your target market isn’t the North Park Twitter bullies...

Not everyone in North Park is a Twitter bully. I don't even have a Twitter account.

[Tom Braybrook]

Like I just said, I was citing the academic and online discourse. I know its convenient to peg it to me in an attempt to discredit but even this morning there was a Capital Daily Podcast about how the CCPA is looking at policy recommendations for broader consultation that doesn't focus on nearby homeowners.

here is a pro tip... when i quote someone else's work, it always agree with it - unless i explicitly say i disagree and am using it to make a point or, and this is key, if tiits obviously be used in an ironic/sarcastic manner

 

so if you quote the "academe" in support of your argument - i assume you believe it to be true

 

if someone quotes Mein Kampf to build a case, ...well, I'll let you guess where i am going with this....

 

this might just be the type of disingenuous tactic that your firm has called out as "toxic" a few comments back...

 

own your words!

[Tom Braybrook]

It's quite interesting that there seems to be broad agreement that we should expand SF housing and built more outside of Victoria. This is the complete opposition of what the Missing Middle policy is trying to do. How is it better for our region to expand low dense housing into our greenbelt instead of building compact housing forms in our existing areas? Sprawl does not pay for itself and so it's horrible for tax efficiency, its incredible destructive environmental policy, and we are relegating people to a life lived in their cars as Victoria still hosts 42% of the regions jobs but only 22% of the population. 

 

All because we don't want some townhouses on our streets that were legal to build for 100 years and banned arbitrarily in the 1980's.

i would say the "broader" agreement is that you "plan" better - identify locations, corridors, specific areas that would support increased density without resorting to the broad brush of blanket zoning .... housing supply is a complex issue, and like all complicated matters there is no simple solution ... and that is what blanket zoning comes across as, a simple solution that might have unforeseen, and wholly unintended, consequences

 

the percentage of jobs will shift (Provincial jobs on the West Shore, new Museum facility, Amazon in Sidney) - and forward looking policies would recognize that. jamming density into every nook and cranny in CoV is reactive, not pro-active

 

As to townhouses, if i walk one or two blocks in three directions from my house I run smack dab into them - and that's just fine with me. just not everywhere, please!

Edited by tommy, 07 December 2021 - 10:50 PM.

[Midnightly]

How so? Unrealized wealth is still wealth. You can take out a line of credit against housing appreciated value, that is wealth. When you sell, there is wealth. You won't find anywhere where I said people should be penalized for this. My point is that receiving untaxed wealth through appreciation and opposing housing that firms up this wealth isn't good policy in dealing with a housing crisis.

as many have mentioned selling and gaining a profit ONLY works IF you can find someplace new to live that will cost you less... and unless your significantly downsizing that will be rare.... also consider any loans or lines of credit you take out on your home do have to be paid back... most often with interest.. and anyone holding a mortgage (or ever had one) will tell you HUGE amounts of money go into interest payments every year money that does not go towards value of the home but lines the pockets of the bank holding the loan...you could almost call the interest fees people being penalized for wanting to own a home and having a mortgage (for not being wealthy enough to buy a home outright)

[m3m]

There’s no reason not to mortgage your home. Interest rates are far lower than inflation. By keeping equity in your home and not borrowing against it, you’re losing money these days.