|
blah_blah posted:I still maintain that however screwed Toronto and Vancouver are, smaller markets (like the distant suburbs surrounding Toronto and Vancouver, and places like Halifax and Fredericton) will take it even harder. That's what happened in America. The burbs were generally hit the hardest with the biggest drops in values and the most foreclosures. Suburban prices are artificially low due to subsidized infrastructure development by federal or state government (and billions in unfunded future maintenance costs), substantially higher transportation costs that aren't reflected in your mortgage statement, and mortgages subsidized by the federal government. When the bubble bursts, people lose income and can't drive anywhere or find an alternative to driving everywhere; home values fall rapidly, putting people into negative equity positions, limiting their ability to obtain credit or move to find work; the state can't keep up the development money, so municipal governments have to deal with their basically unfunded maintenance mandate with a population with reduced income and property values. If the federal government's ability to provide subsidies for mortgages was greatly reduced, or if there was a deliberate action to eliminate such programs, a portion of the true price of suburban homes would be revealed. These things obviously happen in the central city, but the impacts are mitigated by density: workers have affordable travel options besides cars, you probably won't need to move to find work due to the clustering of businesses in the same areas, infrastructure is largely funded, etc. One of the biggest problems cities in my state faced post-crisis was that suburban commuters continued to absorb city resources without paying for them in property taxes, at a time when property values were declining (albeit slower than in the burbs). Suburban commuters consume roads, sidewalks, cops, sanitation, parks, and other services, but they don't pay property taxes to cover their consumption. Luckily, my state's government has a program designed to partially offset this kind of suburban subusidy, but some revisions to the policy had to be made post-crisis. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Sep 17, 2014 |
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Luckily, my state's government has a program designed to partially offset this kind of suburban subusidy, but some revisions to the policy had to be made post-crisis. What program is this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:What program is this? In Minnesota (I live in St. Paul), the Local Government Aid program has a formula for distribution that includes: % of housing stock built pre-1940, 10-year population decline, # of vehicle accidents annually, and designation of "central city." We also have a program called Fiscal Disparities, which is designed to disincentivize uneven suburban and exurban industrial development, or at least to compensate cities that are damaged by tax competition with suburbs and exurbs. Whether or not that program is any good is up for debate routinely. edit: I was involved in the discussions in 2011-2012 to reform the LGA program, and the explicit purpose for those variables in the formula is to compensate the cities for suburban consumption of resources. There was talk of replacing the vehicle accidents variable with a Net Daily Population Increase/Decrease variable, but it didn't get very far. Formula changes might be on the table next session. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:That's what happened in America. The burbs were generally hit the hardest with the biggest drops in values and the most foreclosures. Suburban prices are artificially low due to subsidized infrastructure development by federal or state government (and billions in unfunded future maintenance costs), substantially higher transportation costs that aren't reflected in your mortgage statement, and mortgages subsidized by the federal government. When the bubble bursts, people lose income and can't drive anywhere or find an alternative to driving everywhere; home values fall rapidly, putting people into negative equity positions, limiting their ability to obtain credit or move to find work; the state can't keep up the development money, so municipal governments have to deal with their basically unfunded maintenance mandate with a population with reduced income and property values. If the federal government's ability to provide subsidies for mortgages was greatly reduced, or if there was a deliberate action to eliminate such programs, a portion of the true price of suburban homes would be revealed. You sound like a Charles Marohn disciple?  (as all thinking people should be)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
I started reading Strong Towns earlier this year and a lot of what he talks about applies to Canada as well, especially the GTA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:In Minnesota (I live in St. Paul), the Local Government Aid program has a formula for distribution that includes: % of housing stock built pre-1940, 10-year population decline, # of vehicle accidents annually, and designation of "central city." It probably also don't hurt that the Twin Cities were hit just about the lightest in the country from the bubble and have one of the strongest economies afterward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
drat I thought I was the only one who read strong towns. Sup bros
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-16/chinese-developer-buys-first-canadian-condo-tower-amid-boom.html There is some evidence to that effect. I wonder how many Vancouver developers are shopping for an
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:There is some evidence to that effect. That is loving amazing. Although I mean in theory luamba might be a good place to develop real estate. Being the most expensive place to live in the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Strong Towns is pretty good, death to (the subsidies received by) suburbs! I love me some government intervention in the economy, but we seriously need to stop subsidizing suburbia and mortgages. It all comes down to our cultural obsession with home ownership.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Strong Towns is pretty good, death to (the subsidies received by) suburbs! You've perfectly summarized the position of people like me who are apprehensive or at least cautious about overt gov influence in the economy. Combine the ability to tax and spend vast amounts of money with (1) vote-seeking and (2) with an idiotic culture that values idiotic things, and....
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
This showed up in my inbox this morning
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Wow an actual car and not just a lease?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Yeah, Strong Towns owns. So does this group.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:There is some evidence to that effect. Why does that make the Chinese dumb? They got paid a bunch of oil. It makes the Angolan government dumb, if anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Why does that make the Chinese dumb? They got paid a bunch of oil. It makes the Angolan government dumb, if anything. Well if they were paid in oil to build 500K units of housing, why are they charging (definitely not Angola's) market value for them? 160 times income is a pretty heady multiplier, and it is a number which probably appeared on someone's spreadsheet at some point. Now if their intention was just to build a Potemkin Village in exchange for oil, they probably could have saved themselves some costs by actually building a proper one. Personally I think this is just an extra ridiculous example of the idiocy that has resulted in the empty cities that they are building in China proper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
This is the explanation(s) I've gotten from a few wealthy Chinese who think the chinese are business masterminds and China is unstoppable and will dominate the world with soft power one day: -Ghost cities in China are a western lie. Most are sold! Vancouver has vacant condos too (which smart Chinese are buying) -Chinese are an ancient and wise people who think long term. Maybe that city is a ghost-city now, but a wise investor who buys will be rich when that city fills in, and it will because chinese growth is #1 and the government is brilliant and also plans for the long term success is certain. -Land is everything, ownership is everything. You can not go wrong investing in such things, there will be ups and downs but in the long term it's the #1 investment. Stocks can crash, currencies devalue, but there will always be demand for land and housing. -Ghost cities in Africa? Once again just western propaganda and racism. China is helping Africa follow their model of growth, one day with chinese help the locals will be able to afford those units and when they can China will be vindicated. -Western people are short sighted, only care about profits next year. Chinese think next generation, that is why China will be supreme. Also the west created a lot of pollution and now they "care" about the environment, hypocritical, now it's china's turn and when China needs to it will worry about the environment, but you need money for "green" stuff so China needs to become rich first, then it can solve its environmental problems. Long term thinking, can't fix everything right now. West just wants to cripple China's growth because it's scared and jealous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Well if they were paid in oil to build 500K units of housing, why are they charging (definitely not Angola's) market value for them? 160 times income is a pretty heady multiplier, and it is a number which probably appeared on someone's spreadsheet at some point. I would posit that if they were paid to do it they don't give a flying gently caress whether it makes sense or not. The decision to build was Angola's, not China's. They have billions of people to employ and this helped employ some of them. I'm not defending their policy decisions in general but this one isn't their fuckup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:I would posit that if they were paid to do it they don't give a flying gently caress whether it makes sense or not. The decision to build was Angola's, not China's. They have billions of people to employ and this helped employ some of them. If you are aiming for the argument that they had a reason for what they did, make it. However you are not really countering with anything that resembles shrewd business acumen. If the BC government gave me a large grant, and I used it build an enormous white elephant in the middle of nowhere it would certainly be the BC government's fault. However I doubt that anyone would be planning a ceremony to present me with the Ocrumsprug's Award for Brilliant Global Investing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:If you are aiming for the argument that they had a reason for what they did, make it. However you are not really countering with anything that resembles shrewd business acumen. Angola: "if you loan us $3.5bn we will give you that much plus interest back in oil." China: "ok" Anything that happens after that is literally irrelevant to China. quote:The cost is reported as US$3.5 billion, financed by a Chinese credit line and repaid by the Angolan government with oil. Emphasis added. It is the Angolan government who has to deal with the fact that building the complex is stupid, not China. Selling / lending money for more than one buys / borrows them for is pretty good business. As I said, this is not an example of excellent investment practices and does not speak for the country as a whole, but it certainly isn't a fuckup by China unless you read something that I missed in that page which says they're somehow on the hook for it. E: Corrected some comments to more accurately reflect the nature of the deal so as to avoid derailment on that point. Kalenn Istarion fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:This is the explanation(s) I've gotten from a few wealthy Chinese who think the chinese are business masterminds and China is unstoppable and will dominate the world with soft power one day: "China economy is best economy! Which is why we're pulling our money out of China, and putting it into Canadian real estate!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
So I would win an award then. Awesome!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
melon cat posted:Wow. They all drank the Kool-Aid, haven't they? They drank the Kool-Aid in the exact same way that nearly every western country did, including Canada, which everybody is constantly pointing out. It's hardly unique to China.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:40
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Have you guys been following Australia's housing bubble? Sydney's house prices are up 16% in one year. Apparently it's all sustainable because it's different there. Also: Best Place On Earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
HousingBubble.Jpeg:
Rime fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Have you guys been following Australia's housing bubble? Sydney's house prices are up 16% in one year. Apparently it's all sustainable because it's different there. Also: Best Place On Earth. It's always different everywhere every time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Why the gently caress is Calgary so sprawled when like half the land in the core seems undeveloped???
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
They need that for the rodeo, man. But seriously, they're surrounded by limitless prairie and gas is cheap, density is unsellable in the current climate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. And even with nuclear fire incinerating buildings and the radiation melting people into piles of bloody slag, some people still would roll their eyes at Nenshi recommending anybody who can stay home do so 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Have you guys been following Australia's housing bubble? Sydney's house prices are up 16% in one year. Apparently it's all sustainable because it's different there. Also: Best Place On Earth. Aren't Sydney and Melbourne somewhat geographically constrained by the national parks around them? They could still get much denser, of course, but I thought their suburbs couldn't spread in the same way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Have you guys been following Australia's housing bubble? Sydney's house prices are up 16% in one year. Apparently it's all sustainable because it's different there. Also: Best Place On Earth. These housing situations continue to make a mockery of the financial prudence many of is in here have been espousing for years. We've been wrong for a looooong time 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Aren't Sydney and Melbourne somewhat geographically constrained by the national parks around them? They could still get much denser, of course, but I thought their suburbs couldn't spread in the same way. As with Canada's, their bubble stems from lax lending standards. Lexicon posted:These housing situations continue to make a mockery of the financial prudence many of is in here have been espousing for years. We've been wrong for a looooong time It's just hilarious to read the rationalization for why Australia doesn't have a housing bubble because it's the exact same reasons we use. One might think some REALTOR(TM) just cut and pasted NAB's mortgage flyers or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:As with Canada's, their bubble stems from lax lending standards. Don't forget they sell homes at auction too.  The reasons things are different there (here) in the Best Place on Earth (no we are) and the scapegoats they (we) use being almost word for identical is a never ending source of amusement to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Free appliances or 5000$ off promos are not uncommon here in Montreal, but I had a chuckle when I saw this one in the paper today: Also 12k is 20% of the asking price for a parking spot in this building.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
60k for a loving parking spot 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report...hboard/follows/quote:
Vancouverites are so lazy and dumb even the mainlanders don't want to hire them. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
someone should tell my buddies in the tech industry they don't have to put in OT, I think they missed that bullet point
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
loving Canadians only working the hours laid out in their employment contract. I bet when they work over time they expect to be paid too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
quote:“Canada would miss a golden opportunity if the resource development is delayed,” the executive said. Yeah, because in a world where even iron ore is becoming scarce and problematic to extract, we're really going to "miss out" by not selling off all our resources as fast as possible.  gently caress China, and gently caress the politicians willfully selling our futures to them for a pittance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report...hboard/follows/ quote:
Haha they want Chinese "specialists", aka slave labor, and are also warning us that our hesitancy to irrecoverably destroy our environment is going to make us lose out, because that's how natural resources work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:52
|
|
