|
PT6A posted:Suck it up. If we start going down the road of, "well, they should've known better," when it comes to providing social programs, we're going to end up in a weird, dark place. I can see why any reasonable person would look at the housing bubble as a potentially destructive, bad thing, but there seems to be a huge amount of animosity and bitterness towards those people who committed the (apparently) cardinal sin of wanting to own property. I agree, we're all in this together. We're going to have to pick up Alberta once the oil runs out and they've collected a total of $0 in royalties on it.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
PT6A posted:But they are bad people who made stupid decisions (like most people do from time to time), and they had the unbelievable gall to have more money than SA Forums poster Rime. Surely they deserve to suffer, no? Uh, yes? You realize residential housing is an investment? "Investment" means if it doesn't work out, well then that's all in da game, yo. Unless you're also proposing that there be a hard cap on how much anyone can gain from the sale of a property or other asset, with the proceeds going directly to everyone else who doesn't own your house. Otherwise you are literally just privatizing profits while socialising costs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
^^ Quite. If I were to blow $150,000 gambling on the stock market, society sure as gently caress isn't going to bail me out of it. That would be my own stupidity and I can go die in the gutter as far as our social safety net is concerned. Why should condo buyers be treated any different? Are they some sort of landed nobility now?PT6A posted:But they are bad people who made stupid decisions (like most people do from time to time), and they had the unbelievable gall to have more money than SA Forums poster Rime. Surely they deserve to suffer, no? They don't have more money than me. They were however stupid enough to take on far more debt than I ever will, on a depreciating and shoddily constructed asset with obvious flaws in its design. They can bail themselves out, we have more pressing issues to spend taxpayer money on in this province.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Rime posted:They don't have more money than me. They were however stupid enough to take on far more debt than I ever will, on a depreciating and shoddily constructed asset with obvious flaws in its design. They can bail themselves out, we have more pressing issues to spend taxpayer money on in this province. Yeah, seriously. Being in favour of social safety nets does not mean that you should endorse every conceivable way to socialize losses, especially when the upside is only ever realized privately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Rime posted:Why should condo buyers be treated any different? Are they some sort of landed nobility now? Basically yeah, they vote and any party that promises to "do something" about helping them will get their vote, and they make up a big enough "bloc" of voters that anyone trying to do the right things will be seen as "attacking home owners". Home owners are the middle class and nothing is more sacred than middle class "working families". Also culturally everyone knows gambling is irresponsible and basically throwing your money away. But the vast majority of our culture sees housing as a safe smart investment that everyone from the banks to the government assures us is safe. The gambler blowing his savings has only him self to blame and will be shunned and told he was an idiot, the home buyer who does the same will have a whole community supporting him and angry that the banks tricked him and the government didn't help. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Aren't a whole bunch of condo investors in the courts right now suing developers over the fact they their condos are worth less then they paid for?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Rime posted:^^ Quite. If I were to blow $150,000 gambling on the stock market, society sure as gently caress isn't going to bail me out of it. That would be my own stupidity and I can go die in the gutter as far as our social safety net is concerned. Why should condo buyers be treated any different? Are they some sort of landed nobility now? "Obvious flaws?" Maybe I'm not fully informed on the things that are going on in BC, but how obvious can they be if these buildings are, in fact, up to code, and pass inspection? If they are failing consistently, it would seem the government is not doing an adequate job of modifying its building codes as required to protect residents. If the buildings aren't being built to code, they are doing an insufficient job with enforcement. Either way, I think the government bears some responsibility for not protecting consumers. Secondly, I agree that government compensation should not cover all losses (I had to pay a special assessment two years ago; it wasn't large, it was necessary, and it's added value to the building as it turns out) and that it should be mostly or wholly unavailable to non-owner-occupied condos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Aren't a whole bunch of condo investors in the courts right now suing developers over the fact they their condos are worth less then they paid for? I think this is very good thing. If you go to a financial planner and they give you marketing material saying "if you invest in our fund we predict 5-10% gains a year!" and then that fund does -10% a year that financial dude is in some trouble. But for some reason in real-estate they can make any crazy claims then just shrug and say *eh, thems the housing market, buyer beware.* If we held real-estate to the same standards as finance it would really help. I'm sure they're sort of technically covering their asses in the fine print but so much realestate and development marketing makes the boldest loving claims that I think should be quite illegal to make with backing them up or being held accountable if they don't pan out. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Are REALTORs really that involved in pushing the idea of investment properties? Out of all the places I've heard that real estate is a "good investment" I don't think any of them have been realtors. By and large, they seemed more interested in selling houses than giving investment advice, but that could be a peculiarity of the Calgary market.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Secondly, I agree that government compensation should not cover all losses (I had to pay a special assessment two years ago; it wasn't large, it was necessary, and it's added value to the building as it turns out) and that it should be mostly or wholly unavailable to non-owner-occupied condos. I wouldn't have much of a problem if there was a program like the one being discussed, if it was limited to primary residences (And possibly caped at a certain home value, if you have a million dollar plus home, you shouldn't need to government to bail you out.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think this is very good thing. If you go to a financial planner and they give you marketing material saying "if you invest in our fund we predict 5-10% gains a year!" and then that fund does -10% a year that financial dude is in some trouble. But for some reason in real-estate they can make any crazy claims then just shrug and say *eh, thems the housing market, buyer beware.* 100% agree. Ever seen the condo rate of return pamphlets that Brad Lamb joker puts out with complete impunity? http://www.greaterfool.ca/2012/11/30/smart-rear end-condo-math/ A mutual fund manager doing this would find himself jailed, quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Are REALTORs really that involved in pushing the idea of investment properties?  Are you asking this for real?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Are REALTORs really that involved in pushing the idea of investment properties? Out of all the places I've heard that real estate is a "good investment" I don't think any of them have been realtors. By and large, they seemed more interested in selling houses than giving investment advice, but that could be a peculiarity of the Calgary market. I've noticed a shift in marketing even over the last 10 years. They of course still go on about the building's amazing features, but the primary thrust of the marketing is often about how good of an investment is. They include graphs showing recent housing prices in the area, they give some really lovely "napkin math" showing why buying into the development is going to in fact EARN you money. The whole thing is sold as an investment that I guess you can also sleep in. I even remember one showing the "historical" rate of rise in the area vs other investments to prove you were basically throwing your money away on any other sort of investment. Basically outright saying that buying this townhouse is the best* place you can invest your money for retirement! *based on historical 10 year growth rates Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:
Yes, I actually am. Every realtor I've dealt with has been mainly concerned with selling me whatever I'm looking for. There's never a, "well, you really should buy an investment property" speech, or an analysis of the market and why it's great or not. There's, "how much are you looking to spend?" and "what do you want?", then looking at a bunch of places, and then buying one. Maybe the REALTOR I dealt with had a good idea that if he presumed to give me financial advice, he would be told to gently caress himself in short order, or maybe he's just an anomaly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Are REALTORs really that involved in pushing the idea of investment properties? Out of all the places I've heard that real estate is a "good investment" I don't think any of them have been realtors. By and large, they seemed more interested in selling houses than giving investment advice, but that could be a peculiarity of the Calgary market.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
"every realtor ive ever dealt with" = 1, one time because you are a 20 year old idiot who trolls with absurd anecdotes about your lame non existant experiences that apply to absolutely nothing
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
So if someone's building a children's hospital near my condo, what effect will that have on property values?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
RBC posted:"every realtor ive ever dealt with" = 1, one time How big is the stick up your rear end? I was asking a question, and even though I've only personally bought a single property, it's not like I was uninvolved in the various houses I lived in growing up being bought and sold. Get hosed. Rime actually responded with some good examples. You could've done that, but you chose to be a prick instead. FrozenVent posted:So if someone's building a children's hospital near my condo, what effect will that have on property values? That was based on an incorrect title someone bought me. The actual thing I was talking about was the inconveniences created by extra traffic and noise, as well as having a possibly legitimate grievance with the planning process or lack thereof. I'm guessing it might increase property values a little, but that wasn't the issue I was talking about. I'm not terribly concerned about my property value, outside of it tanking completely, because I don't view my residence as an investment -- I view it as a residence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
RBC posted:"every realtor ive ever dealt with" = 1, one time Y'all need to update your ignore lists. If not for yourselves, then for the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:100% agree. Brad Lamb found himself driving a Rolls Royce instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Yeah, but at least we know who to guillotine when the time comes. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
This headline from the Vancouver Sun is so, so very revealing: Mortgage wars at big banks helps drive B.C. home sales: Economist http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Mortgage+wars+banks+helps+drive+home+sales+Economist/9935769/story.html quote:“Rock-bottom mortgage rates are inducing many would-be buyers to enter the market this spring,” Cameron Muir, the BCREA’s chief economist said in a news release. “With most B.C. markets now in balanced conditions, home prices are up in nine of 11 board areas.” I won't bother quoting the rest - just the usual perfunctory realtor house pumping piffle. Obviously, the Vancouver Sun like basically all Canadian newspapers is unfit to line a litter box - but still. They could at least pretend to fulfill the role of a fact-gathering 5th estate. (Oh, and as a special gently caress-you - they hijack clipboard behaviour also)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
The reason I don't see this as a terrible attempt at a social program is that the government ought not to be in the business of making money off of the misery of their citizens, and it's a little disturbing how the problem some of you seem to have wasn't necessarily the loans themselves, but that they're interest-free. Presumably there are still conditions on paying back those loans, which there should be, but as a social assistance program the government at worst loses some money due to inflation - how much more would stand to be lost in the case of massive foreclosures and the resulting fallout? As for the buyers, I don't really see the point of emphasizing that every single one of them is an idiot - even if they are taking on debt to own the issue is that this was, by and large, a problem many of them could reasonably not expect to encounter - unless you have proof that a vast amount of them were not getting inspections, or ignoring the results of them? And helping this or that group does not necessarily impact the governments ability to help others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
There's also the point that it would be dumb to just let 16,000 homes fall into disrepair out of petty spite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:This headline from the Vancouver Sun is so, so very revealing: This is retarded. The drive by banks to make a profit is driving the housing bubble? The loving tail is literally wagging three dog here. If this is really true it means there's a major regulatory gap. Either the government legislates this out of existence or we just say gently caress all house lending subsidies forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
I'm all for taking care of our citizens but gently caress their investments. As long as they remained housed I'm ok. I'd rather the banks get hosed than the people though. Nationalize any bank "too big to fail" which in turn means the government owns those mortgages and now gently caress you, the government owns your house but it will rent it to you at a fair rate. Turn it into the biggest social housing creation scheme ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Have you ever met anyone that worked for the government? They're loving useless. Government jobs might as well be daycare for remedial adults. Source: I worked in government for 6 loving years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Have you ever met anyone that worked for the government? They're loving useless. Government jobs might as well be daycare for remedial adults. Idle curiosity: what dept/role?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:The reason I don't see this as a terrible attempt at a social program is that the government ought not to be in the business of making money off of the misery of their citizens, and it's a little disturbing how the problem some of you seem to have wasn't necessarily the loans themselves, but that they're interest-free. Presumably there are still conditions on paying back those loans, which there should be, but as a social assistance program the government at worst loses some money due to inflation - how much more would stand to be lost in the case of massive foreclosures and the resulting fallout? It is just natural frustration that the federal government allowed a situation that encouraged/pressured provincial and municipal governments to allow a situation where we are talking about a second leaky condo crisis less than 20 years after the first one. These people will get bailed out, and rightly so. However, this crisis is likely to hit around the same time as a housing correction. People that own $800K sub-penthouse shoeboxes, or $1.3M rotting Vancouver specials and get burned during that correction deserve all the bankruptcy and homelessness they richly deserve for their stupidity. The Venn diagram of those two groups is going to have a pretty significant cross-over and that is likely the source of the vitriol. Someone that purchased a condo and is hit with a $50K repair bill due to shoddy construction is sympathetic. The guy that got a 40 year mortgage that would never be paid off and has just been rolling HELOC funds to drive Audi A4's for the last 8 years is not very sympathetic. ^V e: I sort of want to live in a society where you can be lazy and (in)competent at your job without being called remedial. ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Have you ever met anyone that worked for the government? They're loving useless. Government jobs might as well be daycare for remedial adults. However, my personal experience is in the private sector where it is basically daycare for remedial adults, so how do you like them apples?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Yeah I was about to say that one of the best places I ever worked was a government ministry as a temp and I was amazed at how good the management was at using very limited human and financial resources to deliver critical services. While in the private sector generally the bigger the company the more the entire management class were idiots who "failed up" or who's only skills were politics/connections/nepotism and the company only turned a profit because the workers produced such ridiculous amounts of profit that even with the extreme mismanagement the whole machine still sort of worked. That said, give any large organization a monopoly and no pressures to be run efficiently and you're going to see all sorts of crazy waste and incompetence. At least with an incompetent government you can vote them out. Unless you have a few billion to buy up stocks you don't have a chance to change the management of a corporation and it's not like mythical "market forces" actually exist in a meaningful way once you're big enough or a monopoly. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm all for taking care of our citizens but gently caress their investments. As long as they remained housed I'm ok. I'd rather the banks get hosed than the people though. Nationalize any bank "too big to fail" which in turn means the government owns those mortgages and now gently caress you, the government owns your house but it will rent it to you at a fair rate. Turn it into the biggest social housing creation scheme ever. I actually really like this one as far as fanciful dreams of nationalization that will never ever happen go. What will actually happen (barring a very serious and unlikely misstep) is a bailout where private investors keep their investments in full and people continue paying as much as they possibly can (which will be a much lower number since their income is likely to have taken a hit by then) towards their mortgage, which may have been reduced to the point where it's still (just barely) affordable by aforementioned bailout. It's an easy sell because "don't rock the boat... return to the previous status-quo ASAP" is always an easy sell in Canadian politics, and this one will just so happen to have many very resourceful interested parties behind it. Or maybe I just feel depressed for having read that Joe Oliver quote a few pages back. Things just are not looking up 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Translink is a pretty cool government organization that is actually really productive and like 95% of their gently caress-ups are a direct consequences of the provincial government handing out impossible or contradictory tasks. This is also pretty much the case for all employers larger than 20 or so people, just replace "government" with "executives". Also I hear hospitals get a lot of work done somehow!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Y'all need to update your ignore lists. You occasionally have to read the words of someone who disagrees with you? How terribly awful for you, it's a miracle you're surviving it....
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You occasionally have to read the words of someone who disagrees with you? How terribly awful for you, it's a miracle you're surviving it.... Your disagreements aren't terribly productive is all (and usually lead to long pointless derails). Having said that I find your posts notably above average as far as The Official Canpol Opposition goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I can't wait until he advocates brainwashing for railroaded child soldiers again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Your disagreements aren't terribly productive is all (and usually lead to long pointless derails). Having said that I find your posts notably above average as far as The Official Canpol Opposition goes. I think this one was productive. I asked if realtors were really behind speculation, because based on my experience I didn't see it, and people provided good examples. I think another interesting topic would be to discuss whether it's a reaction to people's existing inclination to invest in real estate, in other words just telling people what they want to hear, or if they are actually creating the desire to invest in real estate. Realistically, if we want to solve these problems, we need to understand whence they come.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
I don't think we need to fully understand the psychology, just regulate the gently caress out of how much REALTORS can blatantly lie and mislead compared to anyone else selling proper investments. If REALTORS want to market their poo poo as big time serious investments they should be held to big time serious investment standards in terms of what they can promise, hint at, and the numbers they provide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I don't think we need to fully understand the psychology, just regulate the gently caress out of how much REALTORS can blatantly lie and mislead compared to anyone else selling proper investments. If REALTORS want to market their poo poo as big time serious investments they should be held to big time serious investment standards in terms of what they can promise, hint at, and the numbers they provide. It's not so cut and dry, though. To say they are acting improperly you'd have to show that it's reasonable to trust realtors to give you investment advice, as you would an investment advisor. If I give my buddy a stock tip, and it turns out poo poo, I'm not responsible in the same way an investment advisor might be, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
PT6A posted:It's not so cut and dry, though. To say they are acting improperly you'd have to show that it's reasonable to trust realtors to give you investment advice, as you would an investment advisor. If I give my buddy a stock tip, and it turns out poo poo, I'm not responsible in the same way an investment advisor might be, for example. You aren't taking a 15% commission off your buddies stock transaction, however the Realtor is doing so off the property which they are pumping. Thanks to that, the situation is very cut & dry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:09
|
|