Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1518 »

HookShot: Dec 26, 2005

Cultural Imperial posted:

Hookshot, you need to take up downhill mtn biking.

I'm doing that this summer, but I've skied all my life so it's definitely more my thing.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 05:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 06:33

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Baronjutter posted:

I don't understand how people don't even do the most basic of research. This isn't picking a printer cable brand or something, these are the biggest purchases you'll make in your life and people can't be bothered to google "condo prices after Olympics" let alone listen to people actually telling them? Christ it's up there with people who just walk onto a dealership and buy the car they thinks looks cool without reading any consumer reports or lemonaid guide or gently caress off anything.

The party line shoved down everyone's throats leading up to the event was "The olympics will be good for everyone! Magic money machine! Yaaaay!", to the extent that trying to point out salient examples such as the debt hell that Salt Lake is still in nearly twenty years later got you treated like a goddamn pariah. :colbert:

# ? Nov 26, 2013 05:49

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

well you can't say no one made money right?

sigh

# ? Nov 26, 2013 07:30

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRIB1lk0N-c

These are the people who live in Vancouver.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 14:14

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

"I own a boat, a Lamborghini and a 2 bedroom + den in Trump Tower" - said no fabulously wealthy person ever

# ? Nov 26, 2013 14:49

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

The most unrealistic aspects of that video are the youth and ethnicity. Like anyone young and white has that much money in Vancouver.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 14:55

Odddzy: Oct 10, 2007; Once shot a man in Reno.

Cultural Imperial posted:

The most unrealistic aspects of that video are the youth and ethnicity. Like anyone young and white has that much money in Vancouver.

The most unrealistic aspect of that video is biker chick using a katana in a cocktail party.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 16:37

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Odddzy posted:

The most unrealistic aspect of that video is biker chick using a katana in a cocktail party.

no that happens a lot here. bdsm/cosplay conventions at bc place.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 17:35

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

It's not loving raining at any point in the video, and the sliced off wine bottle neck is magically reattached when the wine is poured.

COME ON! Details, Trump.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 17:41

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Cultural Imperial posted:

The most unrealistic aspects of that video are the youth and ethnicity. Like anyone young and white has that much money in Vancouver.

I don't know, they look pretty important.

I wonder if that Trump Tower will be as much of a massive failure as the one in Toronto.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 17:43

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

An 80% vacant condo must feel weird and cavernous.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 18:37

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

"Trump" as a luxury brand/mark is rather bizarre to me, given that it's the last name of a guy most people associate with crassness, birtherism, wind farm FUD, and financial ineptitude. I'd be prepared to pay a premium to not live in his building.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 18:40

HookShot: Dec 26, 2005

bathroom sounds posted:

An 80% vacant condo must feel weird and cavernous.

It's actually really nice. I hate the weekends because all the cars in the parking garage make it harder for me to get my car out.

But yeah I imagine most of the people left who respect Donald Trump are the ones who will never have any money and respect the fact that he does in that weird way that they also vote Conservative for when they will be rich.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 19:00

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Most trump projects have absolutely nothing to do with the "man" anyways. They just buy the "Trump" naming rights to slap on their project.

Yes, people are actually paying money for nothing more than the trump name, to put on their luxury development. I could see with his ego if he was paying for the building he'd demand his name on it in GOLD but the dude doesn't actually have money to build anything and he makes most all his money on naming rights these days.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 19:06

Lobok: Jul 13, 2006; Say Watt?

Baronjutter posted:

Most trump projects have absolutely nothing to do with the "man" anyways. They just buy the "Trump" naming rights to slap on their project.

Yes, people are actually paying money for nothing more than the trump name, to put on their luxury development. I could see with his ego if he was paying for the building he'd demand his name on it in GOLD but the dude doesn't actually have money to build anything and he makes most all his money on naming rights these days.

Case in point: You can buy Trump mattresses. I know because I have one. Am I a millionaire? No, the Trump mattress is an average consumer level product that uses his brand.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 19:27

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Ewww.

# ? Nov 26, 2013 21:13

Pixelboy: Sep 13, 2005; Now, I know what you're thinking...

Lexicon posted:

"Trump" as a luxury brand/mark is rather bizarre to me, given that it's the last name of a guy most people associate with crassness, birtherism, wind farm FUD, and financial ineptitude. I'd be prepared to pay a premium to not live in his building.

Oh so much this.

I wonder if he has any idea on how much he has done to damage his brand over the past 6 years.

# ? Nov 27, 2013 01:25

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

My parents are very close to spending around a million dollars on a house in Steveston. They're currently renting and have done so since they sold their burnaby home in 2011.

Despite my conversations with my parents about the state of the housing market, the isolation of living in Steveston, my dad is overly enthused about buying this home. I'm convinced it's because he's a hoarder and he hates the diminished floor space of their 900 Sq ft potemkin village apt.

A loving Million dollars to live in Steveston. loving kill me now. The loving house is 1700 soft.

# ? Nov 27, 2013 02:17

French Canadian: Feb 23, 2004; Fluffy cat sensory experience

On the plus side, you will get to remind your parents of this mistake every day after they move in with you!

# ? Nov 27, 2013 20:20

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

How does it feel to see your inheritance being tossed into the wind?

# ? Nov 27, 2013 22:09

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Rime posted:

How does it feel to see your inheritance being tossed into the wind?

Let's not kid ourselves. They're going to need every cent of that poo poo to live out their retirement based on the probable returns with any kind of wealth manager.

# ? Nov 27, 2013 22:10

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

French Canadian posted:

On the plus side, you will get to remind your parents of this mistake every day after they move in with you!

# ? Nov 27, 2013 22:12

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Let's not kid ourselves. They're going to need every cent of that poo poo to live out their retirement based on the probable returns with any kind of wealth manager.

$1M invested wisely in a diverse portfolio without a leech advisor suckling off it would spin off a very nice income stream with pretty low tax.

Hope it's a nice house.

# ? Nov 27, 2013 22:21

Reince Penis: Nov 15, 2007; by R. Guyovich

From the National Post:

According to the IMF, Canada has the most overvalued housing market in the world

Accompanying picture:

They also suggested we wind down the CMHC:

quote:

The International Monetary Fund says Canada is exposing itself to risk by insuring mortgages through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and recommends scaling back the federal housing agency.

The advice is contained in the IMF's latest economic report card on Canada, which projects modest economic growth of 2.25 per cent in 2013, but warns of �downside risk� from the unstable U.S. economy.

CMHC 'exposes the fiscal budget to financial system risks and might distort the allocation of resources in favour of mortgages and away from more productive uses of capital'- IMF report

The IMF notes that Canada�s hot residential property market is a risk going forward, because household debt is so high

# ? Nov 27, 2013 22:27

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Remember back in the 90s when people were protesting 'globalization' and the world bank the the IMF?

I predict we'll see violent marches by hordes of canadian REALTORS (TM)demanding that Christine Lagarde step down for her crimes against canada.

# ? Nov 27, 2013 23:11

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

I'm a huge fan of Paul Krugman but not so much Larry Summers. An opinion published by Summers wouldn't normally garner my attention by Krugman talks about it and I found it interesting. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/secular-stagnation-coalmines-bubbles-and-larry-summers/?src=xps

quote:

Secular Stagnation, Coalmines, Bubbles, and Larry Summers

I�m pretty annoyed with Larry Summers right now. His presentation at the IMF Research Conference is, justifiably, getting a lot of attention. And here�s the thing: I�ve been thinking along the same lines, and have, I think, hinted at this analysis in various writings. But Larry�s formulation is much clearer and more forceful, and altogether better, than anything I�ve done. Curse you, Red Baron Larry Summers!

OK, with professional jealousy out of the way, let me try to enlarge on Larry�s theme.

1. When prudence is folly

Larry�s formulation of our current economic situation is the same as my own. Although he doesn�t use the words �liquidity trap�, he works from the understanding that we are an economy in which monetary policy is de facto constrained by the zero lower bound (even if you think central banks could be doing more), and that this corresponds to a situation in which the �natural� rate of interest � the rate at which desired savings and desired investment would be equal at full employment � is negative.

And as he also notes, in this situation the normal rules of economic policy don�t apply. As I like to put it, virtue becomes vice and prudence becomes folly. Saving hurts the economy � it even hurts investment, thanks to the paradox of thrift. Fixating on debt and deficits deepens the depression. And so on down the line.

This is the kind of environment in which Keynes�s hypothetical policy of burying currency in coalmines and letting the private sector dig it up � or my version, which involves faking a threat from nonexistent space aliens � becomes a good thing; spending is good, and while productive spending is best, unproductive spending is still better than nothing.

Larry also indirectly states an important corollary: this isn�t just true of public spending. Private spending that is wholly or partially wasteful is also a good thing, unless it somehow stores up trouble for the future. That last bit is an important qualification. But suppose that U.S. corporations, which are currently sitting on a huge hoard of cash, were somehow to become convinced that it would be a great idea to fit out all their employees as cyborgs, with Google Glass and smart wristwatches everywhere. And suppose that three years later they realized that there wasn�t really much payoff to all that spending. Nonetheless, the resulting investment boom would have given us several years of much higher employment, with no real waste, since the resources employed would otherwise have been idle.

OK, this is still mostly standard, although a lot of people hate, just hate, this kind of logic � they want economics to be a morality play, and they don�t care how many people have to suffer in the process.

But now comes the radical part of Larry�s presentation: his suggestion that this may not be a temporary state of affairs.

2. An economy that needs bubbles?

We now know that the economic expansion of 2003-2007 was driven by a bubble. You can say the same about the latter part of the 90s expansion; and you can in fact say the same about the later years of the Reagan expansion, which was driven at that point by runaway thrift institutions and a large bubble in commercial real estate.

So you might be tempted to say that monetary policy has consistently been too loose. After all, haven�t low interest rates been encouraging repeated bubbles?

But as Larry emphasizes, there�s a big problem with the claim that monetary policy has been too loose: where�s the inflation? Where has the overheated economy been visible?

So how can you reconcile repeated bubbles with an economy showing no sign of inflationary pressures? Summers�s answer is that we may be an economy that needs bubbles just to achieve something near full employment � that in the absence of bubbles the economy has a negative natural rate of interest. And this hasn�t just been true since the 2008 financial crisis; it has arguably been true, although perhaps with increasing severity, since the 1980s.

One way to quantify this is, I think, to look at household debt. Here�s the ratio of household debt to GDP since the 50s:

There was a sharp increase in the ratio after World War II, but from a low base, as families moved to the suburbs and all that. Then there were about 25 years of rough stability, from 1960 to around 1985. After that, however, household debt rose rapidly and inexorably, until the crisis struck.

So with all that household borrowing, you might have expected the period 1985-2007 to be one of strong inflationary pressure, high interest rates, or both. In fact, you see neither � this was the era of the Great Moderation, a time of low inflation and generally low interest rates. Without all that increase in household debt, interest rates would presumably have to have been considerably lower � maybe negative. In other words, you can argue that our economy has been trying to get into the liquidity trap for a number of years, and that it only avoided the trap for a while thanks to successive bubbles.

And if that�s how you see things, when looking forward you have to regard the liquidity trap not as an exceptional state of affairs but as the new normal.

3. Secular stagnation?

How did this happen? Larry explicitly invokes the notion of secular stagnation, associated in particular with Alvin Hansen (pdf). He doesn�t say why this might be happening to us now, but it�s not hard to think of possible reasons.

Back in the day, Hansen stressed demographic factors: he thought slowing population growth would mean low investment demand. Then came the baby boom. But this time around the slowdown is here, and looks real.

Think of it this way: during the period 1960-85, when the U.S. economy seemed able to achieve full employment without bubbles, our labor force grew an average 2.1 percent annually. In part this reflected the maturing of the baby boomers, in part the move of women into the labor force.

This growth made sustaining investment fairly easy: the business of providing Americans with new houses, new offices, and so on easily absorbed a fairly high fraction of GDP.

Now look forward. The Census projects that the population aged 18 to 64 will grow at an annual rate of only 0.2 percent between 2015 and 2025. Unless labor force participation not only stops declining but starts rising rapidly again, this means a slower-growth economy, and thanks to the accelerator effect, lower investment demand.

By the way, in a Samuelson consumption-loan model, the natural rate of interest equals the rate of population growth. Reality is a lot more complicated than that, but I don�t think it�s foolish to guess that the decline in population growth has reduced the natural real rate of interest by something like an equal amount (and to note that Japan�s shrinking working-age population is probably a major factor in its secular stagnation.)

There may be other factors � a Bob Gordonesque decline in innovation, etc.. The point is that it�s not hard to think of reasons why the liquidity trap could be a lot more persistent than anyone currently wants to admit.

4. Destructive virtue

If you take a secular stagnation view seriously, it has some radical implications � and Larry goes there.

Currently, even policymakers who are willing to concede that the liquidity trap makes nonsense of conventional notions of policy prudence are busy preparing for the time when normality returns. This means that they are preoccupied with the idea that they must act now to head off future crises. Yet this crisis isn�t over � and as Larry says, �Most of what would be done under the aegis of preventing a future crisis would be counterproductive.�

He goes on to say that the officially respectable policy agenda involves �doing less with monetary policy than was done before and doing less with fiscal policy than was done before,� even though the economy remains deeply depressed. And he says, a bit fuzzily but bravely all the same, that even improved financial regulation is not necessarily a good thing � that it may discourage irresponsible lending and borrowing at a time when more spending of any kind is good for the economy.

Amazing stuff � and if we really are looking at secular stagnation, he�s right.

Of course, the underlying problem in all of this is simply that real interest rates are too high. But, you say, they�re negative � zero nominal rates minus at least some expected inflation. To which the answer is, so? If the market wants a strongly negative real interest rate, we�ll have persistent problems until we find a way to deliver such a rate.

One way to get there would be to reconstruct our whole monetary system � say, eliminate paper money and pay negative interest rates on deposits. Another way would be to take advantage of the next boom � whether it�s a bubble or driven by expansionary fiscal policy � to push inflation substantially higher, and keep it there. Or maybe, possibly, we could go the Krugman 1998/Abe 2013 route of pushing up inflation through the sheer power of self-fulfilling expectations.

Any such suggestions are, of course, met with outrage. How dare anyone suggest that virtuous individuals, people who are prudent and save for the future, face expropriation? How can you suggest steadily eroding their savings either through inflation or through negative interest rates? It�s tyranny!

But in a liquidity trap saving may be a personal virtue, but it�s a social vice. And in an economy facing secular stagnation, this isn�t just a temporary state of affairs, it�s the norm. Assuring people that they can get a positive rate of return on safe assets means promising them something the market doesn�t want to deliver � it�s like farm price supports, except for rentiers.

Oh, and one last point. If we�re going to have persistently negative real interest rates along with at least somewhat positive overall economic growth, the panic over public debt looks even more foolish than people like me have been saying: servicing the debt in the sense of stabilizing the ratio of debt to GDP has no cost, in fact negative cost.

I could go on, but by now I hope you�ve gotten the point. What Larry did at the IMF wasn�t just give an interesting speech. He laid down what amounts to a very radical manifesto. And I very much fear that he may be right.

The idea that's blowing my mind, maybe the housing bubble in Canada isn't really a bad thing? Inflation is low, the boomers are getting old and the population is declining if you factor out all of the investment class immigrants. Maybe building lovely condos is really paying for all the government services that we want?

namaste friends fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Nov 27, 2013

# ? Nov 27, 2013 23:24

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Cultural Imperial posted:

Maybe building lovely condos is really paying for all the government services that we want?

Other, much better, options abound. If we turned around tomorrow and nationalized every oil company operating in Alberta, ala Norway, we'd be able to finance government services right out through the upcoming strain of dying boomers and ensure a soft landing as the population of the country settles.

After all, unlike lovely condos, Oil is a finite resource that is only going to increase in price up until it goes poof.

# ? Nov 28, 2013 00:21

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Rime posted:

Other, much better, options abound. If we turned around tomorrow and nationalized every oil company operating in Alberta, ala Norway, we'd be able to finance government services right out through the upcoming strain of dying boomers and ensure a soft landing as the population of the country settles.

After all, unlike lovely condos, Oil is a finite resource that is only going to increase in price up until it goes poof.

I think Krugman and Summers have a much better idea, that is to implement negative interest rates. How much cash is say, Suncor or Encana holding? Or loving Enbridge?

# ? Nov 28, 2013 00:34

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Cultural Imperial posted:

I think Krugman and Summers have a much better idea, that is to implement negative interest rates. How much cash is say, Suncor or Encana holding? Or loving Enbridge?

$18 Trillion in proven reserves, based on today's list price of $111/bbl (a price which is only going to go up), and the already-in-place infrastructure to suck it out. That wouldn't finance medicare and CPP through the next thirty years of a tax base in free fall?

Rime fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Nov 28, 2013

# ? Nov 28, 2013 00:45

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Conclusions from that IMF report referenced by everyone's favorite hab:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2013/112613.htm

quote:

8. Over the long run, the need for extensive government backed mortgage insurance should be re-examined. The current system has its advantages, including as a macro-prudential tool. However, it exposes the fiscal budget to financial system risks and might distort the allocation of resources in favor of mortgages and away from more productive uses of capital. Against this background, the government�s recent initiatives to impose limits on government-backed mortgage insurance have been appropriate. Looking ahead, further measures should be considered to encourage appropriate risk retention by the private sector and increase the market share of private mortgage insurers. Importantly, any structural change should be made gradually over time to avoid any unintended consequence on financial stability.

What? You mean people with 60k/year incomes shouldn't be buying 400k condos?

# ? Nov 28, 2013 01:51

Mr.Shadow: Feb 17, 2011

Rime posted:

$18 Trillion in proven reserves, based on today's list price of $111/bbl (a price which is only going to go up), and the already-in-place infrastructure to suck it out. That wouldn't finance medicare and CPP through the next thirty years of a tax base in free fall?

$111/bbl is the pricing of Brent Crude which is not what our oil is sold for. The oil coming out of Alberta is selling way lower than that and WTI due to limited pipeline/export capacity and the U.S shale boom.

I live in Coquitlam, which is about 30 minutes away from Vancouver, and just in the past few years 5 apartment towers have gone up. There are 3 more currently under construction within 3 blocks that cost $280k for 600 square feet...

# ? Nov 28, 2013 03:52

Squibbles: Aug 24, 2000; Mwaha ha HA ha!

Mr.Shadow posted:

$111/bbl is the pricing of Brent Crude which is not what our oil is sold for. The oil coming out of Alberta is selling way lower than that and WTI due to limited pipeline/export capacity and the U.S shale boom.

I live in Coquitlam, which is about 30 minutes away from Vancouver, and just in the past few years 5 apartment towers have gone up. There are 3 more currently under construction within 3 blocks that cost $280k for 600 square feet...

At least those have the excuse of soon being on a skytrain line. The one on Austin and Blue Mountain defies explanation.

# ? Nov 28, 2013 04:36

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/toronto-condo-rents-look-poised-to-fall-report-shows/article15652306/?service=mobile

Rents in Toronto are expected to fall.

# ? Nov 28, 2013 22:05

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/whistler/rmow-to-investigate-illegal-rental-properties/Content?oid=2519448

quote:

A local accommodation property owner is speaking out against alleged illegal nightly rental units in the resort, and is asking the municipality to take action.

Madeleine Hamilton has owned a number of legally zoned nightly rental properties in Whistler for 15 years, and after losing a recent booking to an illegal unit, she compiled a list of 50 rental properties that are allegedly in contravention of their zoning. Last week, she submitted the list to the Resort Municipality of Whistler's (RMOW) Bylaw Services Department requesting enforcement.

"As a homeowner who's seen a significant decline in retail value since 2008... and the fact that the fees associated with having a legally zoned property just aren't being covered anymore, I think it's about time the municipality closed these places down so the revenue goes to who it should go to," she said. "It's been 15 years and it still hasn't been rectified. I've done the homework and given (the RMOW) all the information."

Hamilton said she pays around $5,000 annually to Tourism Whistler (TW) in commercial and marketing fees for her rental property. Beyond making it more difficult to cover costs, however, she said illegal nightly units result in declining resort property values and pose a greater safety risk for guests, a concern shared by Hotel Association of Whistler president and Hilton general manager Stephen Webb.

"There's a safety and security issue if these (illegal rental properties) haven't been licensed or inspected to house as many people as they may be housing," he said.

Webb has met officials from the municipality and Tourism Whistler to discuss ways to tackle this issue, he said.

"I feel like (the municipality) is probably not aware of the size of this issue, and maybe this will help," he said. "Our approach as an association is (achieving) a level playing field, as far as tax and other regulation is concerned."

The RMOW deals with illegal rental units on a complaint-by-complaint basis, said acting mayor John Grills. If a property is found to be in contravention of local bylaws, a complaint letter is issued to the owner with a 30-day window for compliance. If the matter is still not rectified, a second letter is issued with another 30 days for compliance, followed by a request via administrative report that council consider a Supreme Court injunction against the property owner. Since this policy was created, a $1,000 fine for use contrary to zoning has also been introduced, which can be imposed at any point, according to the RMOW. In many cases, property owners are unaware that nightly rentals require the proper zoning, and the letters of complaint are usually enough to prompt compliance.

"From my point of view, it's important that a property is zoned and that you have a legal operation; not only to make sure everyone's playing a fair game, but also for the safety of the guests," Grills said.

He noted this is an issue that has only recently come to council's attention.

Tourism Whistler, which does not have the mandate or jurisdiction to enforce zoning regulations, has seen the impact illegal nightly rental units has had on resort accommodation, said president Barrett Fisher.

"Ultimately, it increases the capacity of inventory that Whistler believes it has for nightly tourism rentals beyond what was planned for the resort," she said. "It inflates the volume of tourist accommodations beyond what may be sustainable."

Accommodation listing services like Airbnb, Owner Direct Vacation Rentals and HomeAway Canada have led to the proliferation of illegal properties advertised in Whistler, according to Hamilton, who said these companies require property owners to sign an agreement stating they will comply with local bylaws, meaning many have allegedly provided false declarations.

Fisher said it's important to note that many of the rentals promoted on these websites are legitimate, but that resort accommodation partners believe "this issue is growing because of the very nature of those websites that are promoting some of these vacation properties by owner."

She said Tourism Whistler is willing to work with partners to review owner-direct rental websites to establish the scope of the problem and determine action, if necessary.

A petition on illegal rentals in Whistler is at https://www.tinyurl.com/illegalrentals.

my property value :smithcloud:

I see Madeleine Hamilton is also getting a crash course in microeconomics.

# ? Nov 29, 2013 19:05

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/whistler/rmow-to-investigate-illegal-rental-properties/Content?oid=2519448

my property value

I see Madeleine Hamilton is also getting a crash course in microeconomics.

It really serves to underscore how things like "zoning" are nothing more than an economic supply/demand regulator mechanism, though no one is keen to admit that. She invokes "safety and security" and you hear similar justification elsewhere ("green space", "safety", "commercial")... but it really is first and foremost an economic concern; i.e. preserving the capitalization rates of existing property owners.

# ? Nov 29, 2013 19:26

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...rticle15676047/

Yes good trick Kerry Gold. This way you get on the property ladder and you can ride it up to the infinite peak of capital appreciation.

# ? Nov 30, 2013 00:39

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Lexicon posted:

It really serves to underscore how things like "zoning" are nothing more than an economic supply/demand regulator mechanism, though no one is keen to admit that. She invokes "safety and security" and you hear similar justification elsewhere ("green space", "safety", "commercial")... but it really is first and foremost an economic concern; i.e. preserving the capitalization rates of existing property owners.

And as a corollary, this is why I don't believe in 'induced demand' when it comes to traffic. If you build highways to ease congestion so that goods can move more easily, I don't think this necessarily means that people are going to buy cars to fill up the roads. Roads become congested when
1) the population is growing
2) they connect areas zoned for cheap residential homes with the rest of the city

# ? Nov 30, 2013 00:43

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Cultural Imperial posted:

And as a corollary, this is why I don't believe in 'induced demand' when it comes to traffic. If you build highways to ease congestion so that goods can move more easily, I don't think this necessarily means that people are going to buy cars to fill up the roads. Roads become congested when
1) the population is growing
2) they connect areas zoned for cheap residential homes with the rest of the city

Woah I'd love to read your data on why you don't believe in induced demand, you could make big bux proving to urban and transport planners why they're wrong doing lecture tours.

# ? Nov 30, 2013 00:58

on the left: Nov 2, 2013; I Am A Gigantic Piece Of Shit

Literally poo from a diseased human butt

Are the illegal nightly rentals a bunch of airbnb properties that are destroying the market for her rental?

# ? Nov 30, 2013 05:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 06:33

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

What is even an "illegal nightly rental"? Maybe it's because I'm living in a country where zoning isn't the fundamental aspect of urban planning but I have no idea what the article is even talking about. :psyduck:

# ? Nov 30, 2013 06:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1518 »