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.

peter banana: Sep 2, 2008; Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

Baronjutter posted:

I read an article a week or so ago about a condo project that was going to have a dog has an amenity. Like a strata-owned dog that the residents could "book" or "rent" or what ever. That kinda seems like a cool idea, I love dogs and often wish I had one but I'm much better hanging out with other people's dogs than deal with all the lovely aspects when they live with you full time. But that poor dog being raised by a bunch of loving condo owners. Dogs need training and consistent discipline, seems like a pretty lovely environment for the dog. Unless it's like an adult chill dog that's already trained and doesn't give a poo poo as to which human is currently petting and walking it.

drat can't find the article. Was pretty sure it was for a Toronto condo and the shared dog was part of the pre-sales pitch.

Some hotels do this, but it's kind of okay because someone takes the dog home at night and the dog has a cool place to chill. Also people on vacation are happy and miss their dogs at home. In a condo it sounds horrible

# ? Sep 25, 2014 14:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 07:19

peter banana: Sep 2, 2008; Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

as a cat owner, cats are dumb as poo poo (far dumber than most breeds of dogs) but it actually takes very little effort to ensure they don't destroy the apartment you're renting. They mostly just destroy your stuff.

Like my couch, you shits!

# ? Sep 25, 2014 14:45

Danny LaFever: Dec 29, 2008; Grimey Drawer

poo poo in the halls. Vancouver sounds like hell on earth.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 15:06

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Danny LaFever posted:

poo poo in the halls. Vancouver sounds like hell on earth.

Best place on earth, for me to poop on!!!

# ? Sep 25, 2014 15:15

Lain Iwakura: Aug 5, 2004; The body exists only to verify one's own existence.; Taco Defender

Baronjutter posted:

Best place on earth, for me to poop on!!!

So great that BC's economy is too good for foreign companies to invest in.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 15:20

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Awwww we didn't give foreign capital enough incentives for them to create jobs here.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 15:58

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Baronjutter posted:

Awwww we didn't give foreign capital enough incentives for them to create jobs here.

Honestly I would be looking for reasons to bail on my LNG commitments about now too.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 16:53

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

Could someone tl;dr the LNG situation generally, and in particular with respect to BC?

# ? Sep 25, 2014 16:58

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Here's the FT article in question.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/908e5616-4454-11e4-8abd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ELNAv800

quote:

Petronas, Malaysia�s state-owned oil and gas group, is threatening to pull the plug on a $10bn liquefied natural gas project in Canada, saying new taxes and rising competition from a slew of US shale gas projects threaten its viability.

The warning is the first sign that the rapid development of gas ventures in the neighbouring US may be undermining the prospects for Canada�s gas export projects, many of which are destined to supply energy-hungry Asian economies.

The way things are developing the project remains uncertain and I doubt we will be able to make a positive [final investment decision] by year-end,� Shamsul Abbas, Petronas chief executive, told the Financial Times.

Petronas for the past two years has been working on developing a huge LNG project in Canada, having bought Progress Energy last year for C$5.5bn ($4.9bn) after a troubled antitrust process.

It aims to take gas from a remote part of northeast British Columbia, liquefy it and transport it to Asia, where demand for LNG is projected to grow faster than in any other region.
Petronas owns 62 per cent of the project, in which China�s Sinopec in April said it would take a 15 per cent stake. Japex Montney � the Canadian subsidiary of Japan Petroleum Exploration � and Indian Oil Corporation each have 10 per cent while Petroleum Brunei has a 3 per cent interest. Each has made commitments to buy LNG from the Canadian project.

The Malaysian operator has also agreed with TransCanada, a pipeline operator, to build more than 900km of natural gas pipelines over rough terrain.

Mr Abbas said, however, that the company was �ready to call off� the project amid delays in the approval process, the recent imposition of an LNG tax by the British Columbia government and a �lack of appropriate incentives�.

�Rather than ensuring the development of the LNG industry through appropriate incentives and assurance of legal and fiscal stability, the Canadian landscape of LNG development is now one of uncertainty, delay and short vision,� Mr Abbas said ahead of a visit to Canada on Friday.

This year British Columbia unveiled a proposed two-tier tax rate of 1.5 per cent and 7 per cent, levied on income from liquefaction of natural gas in the province, regardless of whether the LNG is for export or domestic use.

Billed by the government as part of efforts to achieve a �competitive� tax policy to aid LNG development, it is due to be implemented early next year.

Mr Abbas warned, however, that Canada was �already 40 years behind in the game� and that its biggest buyer of gas � the US � was now not only its biggest competitor but also �leading Canada by a far stretch�.

�Canada has to buck up real fast to be a credible global LNG player if it wants to be taken seriously by potential investors. Until investors cross the final investment line with an economically viable project, they remain just potential investors on paper,� he said.

There are 13 proposed LNG plants on the west coast of Canada to export gas to Asia, including projects led by Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron.

However, the shale gas boom in the US means it has less need for Canadian gas, and its imports are dwindling. They declined 26 per cent between 2007 and 2013, and are expected to fall further, industry analysts say.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:02

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Haven't people been buying up houses in the towns where these proposed LNG ports will be?

# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:12

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Lexicon posted:

Could someone tl;dr the LNG situation generally, and in particular with respect to BC?

Basically the BC government finally decided to make a push to develop a LNG export industry, just in time to be at a minimum 5 years behind every other jurisdiction in the world and with the price already collapsing to the point where the investment no longer makes sense.

All the companies that were on board to build the terminals, are now quietly (or not so much in this case) slinking off the bandwagon.

Why it has taken this long to get the government to move on this is anyones guess though. I want to say they were distracted by HST, but frankly that doesn't even really fit the timeline. The BC Liberals have been coasting on inertia for ~10 years now.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:15

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

well at least we can fall back on the condo industry

# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:19

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

They'll blame it on red tape and environmentalist opposition and probably something the NDP did.

Yeah, we need a big condo export terminal. Maybe expand duke point to include the needed facilities.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:20

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

ocrumsprug posted:

Basically the BC government finally decided to make a push to develop a LNG export industry, just in time to be at a minimum 5 years behind every other jurisdiction in the world and with the price already collapsing to the point where the investment no longer makes sense.

All the companies that were on board to build the terminals, are now quietly (or not so much in this case) slinking off the bandwagon.

Why it has taken this long to get the government to move on this is anyones guess though. I want to say they were distracted by HST, but frankly that doesn't even really fit the timeline. The BC Liberals have been coasting on inertia for ~10 years now.

I see. Why was it dependent on the government though? If there was a buck to be had, I would assume the various energy outfits (we have several of them in this country, I hear) would be chomping at the bit to get it rolling.

Or.... is that the point? That it wasn't sufficiently economically viable, and so the government was the only one willing to spend the vast amounts of money to do the thing? :bang:

# ? Sep 25, 2014 17:27

Lain Iwakura: Aug 5, 2004; The body exists only to verify one's own existence.; Taco Defender

http://globalnews.ca/map/1384836/

Does anyone know how to use this map (data is from 2005, but still useful) to combine it with condo prices and payday loan places? I am sort of curious.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:07

Kalenn Istarion: Nov 2, 2012; Maybe Senpai will finally notice me now that I've dropped :fivebux: on this snazzy av

Lexicon posted:

I see. Why was it dependent on the government though? If there was a buck to be had, I would assume the various energy outfits (we have several of them in this country, I hear) would be chomping at the bit to get it rolling.

Or.... is that the point? That it wasn't sufficiently economically viable, and so the government was the only one willing to spend the vast amounts of money to do the thing?

It is more likely a case of 'it's viable, but these competing jurisdictions are bidding for our investment dollars and they are making better offers'.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 18:41

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

Baronjutter posted:

I love pets, I just hate barking dogs keeping me up all night because of lovely owners and lovely landlords that don't enforce rules. It's way easier to say "no pets" than actually kick some out out of a building because their dog barks every second they're not home. If noise complaints were handled by the city and not the landlord that would be another issue, but so many landlords just don't want to deal with anything, specially conflict between tenants and will often side with who ever isn't bothering them. A couple of my friends live in buildings that allow cats and they smell like cat piss and my wife gets all itchy (allergic) anytime she goes over. I've seen god drat kitty litter in the hallways. The problem of course is easily solved by better building codes and landlords actually cleaning and enforcing rules. My other friend's apartment has an ongoing problem with dog poo poo in the hallways and stairwells because people are too lazy to take their tiny toy breeds outside, specially in the winter, and just let them poo poo in the hallways. If you're renting at the lower end of the price spectrum pet-free buildings are always so much nicer. If you're going to be stuck in a poorly maintained slum it's just nice to eliminate pet poo poo and noises from the list of horrible issues, it's just one less thing to have to endure because your landlord is NOT going to be helping you. If you're allergic to the neighbour's cat, you end up having to move. If the neighbour's dog keeps you up all night, tough poo poo you end up having to move if you want to sleep. I don't want people driven from their homes because some idiot decided they just absolutely need an animal in their apartment.

I'd just love to see the building codes improved a bit so that smells and noises don't transfer from unit to unit so easily, but in most buildings here they do, so building-wide rules on things that can greatly effect fellow tenants are fine with me.

Um, this is an issue even when you own your house as I do with my neighbors annoying as gently caress animal.

sbaldrick fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Sep 25, 2014

# ? Sep 25, 2014 19:33

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10232604

quote:

As a growing number of global cities levy special taxes to cool overheated housing markets, some Vancouverites are wondering, why not here?

The topic was the focus of spirited discussion recently at a downtown public gathering that was part of Simon Fraser University�s City Conversations series.

The idea of taxing foreign buyers, property speculators, and/or owners who leave properties vacant � as COPE mayoral candidate Meena Wong recently advocated and the Greens support � has gained traction in a civic election campaign where housing affordability is a prominent issue. Green candidate Pete Fry also is floating the notion of a tax on buyers of homes selling for $4 million plus.

The objective would be calming the market and perhaps generating revenue for affordable housing or transit, in ways that would be painless for the bulk of the local population.

The concept is not a bad one if you ascribe to the notion that government ought to tax things it wishes to discourage. And, increasingly it appears, cities around the world want to dissuade certain groups of buyers.

� San Franciscans vote next month on an �anti-speculation tax� ballot measure that, on a graduated scale, would tax investors selling within five years of buying an apartment building with 30 or fewer units.

� In Singapore, a stamp tax paid on property purchases is minimal for permanent residents and citizens, but not for foreign buyers.

� Hong Kong imposes a 15-per-cent levy on buyers who are not permanent residents. It also has a stamp duty of up to 8.5 per cent on real estate properties that are not a buyer�s primary home.

� Since 2012, London�s equivalent of local city councils has been able to impose a much higher council tax on owners who keep their housing units vacant.

� Since 2010, Australia allows foreigners to buy only new property. Temporary residents, upon departing the country, must sell their properties.

But, in Vancouver, would voters agree to a plan that would discourage any group of buyers if it would depress housing prices and reduce returns for Vancouverites wanting to sell?

And, as Non-Partisan Association mayoral candidate Kirk LaPointe warns, enforcement would be tough. Wealthy tax targets are adept at circumventing levies.

Then there are accusations about racism that often accompany measures aimed solely at foreigners. This could especially be a problem in Vancouver where so many foreign buyers, and locals, are Asian. Any serious political candidate would reject such an initiative.

Potentially simpler ways to improve affordability might be for the province to ease its property transfer tax, a gratuitous levy discouraging the buying and selling of property � a counterproductive thing to do to an activity that generates so much additional business activity.

Charged as a percentage of a home�s selling price, the transfer tax is outdated and based on housing values of years ago when the tax was first introduced.

Another way to address affordability would be to adjust remuneration for Vancouver-area realtors, also based on percentages of the selling price of a house. Those percentages made sense when homes were more affordable, but with prices becoming stratospheric, realty fees have also become stratospheric, and harder to justify.

Other possible ways of achieving affordability would involve new forms of densification � not always welcomed by neighbourhoods.

Recent suggestions for more affordable homes have come from the Urban Development Institute�s Pacific Branch. It wants to see small homes built on smaller lots. Vancouver�s network of lanes makes it possible to build houses at the rear of existing lots. Laneway houses, now rentals only, could be made available for sale, as could basement suites.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:03

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Can't have taxes on the rich because that's both classism and racism
Can't have taxes on all property transfers because you can't cool the housing market even though everyone's screaming about affordability.
You can't increase density because of NIMBY's.

The status quo is horrible but changing it would be even worse!!

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:08

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

There's a complete failure in the Canadian press to acknowledge that there's too much lending going on.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:11

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

I don't understand how people will scream about "housing is unaffordable!!! This is ridiculous!!". Tons of polls keep showing housing affordability being a top issue in Vancouver. People want everyone else's houses to be worth less just not their own, so they flip the gently caress out at any measure that would cool prices globally. They basically don't want prices to go down but they want to be able to afford more, so the answer is always "easier debt".

It's just such a weird situation, I don't understand how human brains work sometimes. I have friends in Vancouver and all they talk about is housing prices and how unaffordable things are, but at the same time it's almost a matter of pride since it "proves" Vancouver is just such an amazing place. When the typical Vancouverite yells about wanting housing to be more affordable they still can't shake the notion that prices will always be going up. They want houses to be more affordable not just so they can have a place to live, but so they can "build equity". In fact from talking to Vancouverites it seems like the top priority for them. Their issue isn't that they don't have space to live, the issue is that they are upset people are making tons of money off housing but they've been priced out of even the bottom end. Because of this mindset they will violently resist any measure that would solve the affordability issue but at the same time kill what they see as a never ending money printing investment.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:27

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

^ That's why there is no solution to the problem of Vancouver's unaffordability other than not living there.

# ? Sep 25, 2014 21:37

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

The solution is to wait for the inevitable crash :getin:

# ? Sep 26, 2014 06:08

triplexpac: Mar 24, 2007; Suck it
Two tears in a bucket
And then another thing
I'm not the one they'll try their luck with
Hit hard like brass knuckles
See your face through the turnbuckle dude
I got no love for you

So my friends saw a house on Wednesday night, put in a bid last night and bought the house. I don't think they did a home inspection... hope it all works out for them!

# ? Sep 26, 2014 14:31

Blade_of_tyshalle: Jul 12, 2009; If you think that, along the way, you're not going to fail... you're blind.

There's no one I've ever met, no matter how successful they are, who hasn't said they had their failures along the way.

Which part of the country are they in? I'm not sure if Mike Holmes ventures out of the GTA too much.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 14:45

triplexpac: Mar 24, 2007; Suck it
Two tears in a bucket
And then another thing
I'm not the one they'll try their luck with
Hit hard like brass knuckles
See your face through the turnbuckle dude
I got no love for you

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

Which part of the country are they in? I'm not sure if Mike Holmes ventures out of the GTA too much.

They're in Toronto. House was about 690k

Edit: Actually maybe someone can explain this to me. I don't want to ask her because I want to just be happy for her while she's buying this house.

I asked her what the process was. She said she saw the house on Wednesday night, they put in a bid on Thursday (5K under the asking price) and they got it. The owners were going to have an open house on Saturday.

Why would the owners not wait and do the open house? And is it possible the owners did a home inspection and had the paperwork or something?

triplexpac fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Sep 26, 2014

# ? Sep 26, 2014 14:45

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

The only reason I can think of, they've listed the house before and no one wanted to buy it.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 15:04

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

triplexpac posted:

They're in Toronto. House was about 690k

Edit: Actually maybe someone can explain this to me. I don't want to ask her because I want to just be happy for her while she's buying this house.

I asked her what the process was. She said she saw the house on Wednesday night, they put in a bid on Thursday (5K under the asking price) and they got it. The owners were going to have an open house on Saturday.

Why would the owners not wait and do the open house? And is it possible the owners did a home inspection and had the paperwork or something?

Ask her who her home inspector is and when she's doing it? Even if the sellers had a home inspection done, you'd be a fool to trust it. There aren't any standards or licensing for home inspectors, you should always get your own as well as a licensed electrician and plumber to take a look.

Most people do a conditional offer that gives the buyer a week or two to do a home inspection, secure the mortgage and ensure they can get insurance. There may be some other conditions as well. After that time, you make your final offer that has the conditions removed and maybe a little more negotiating to fix stuff that came up in the inspection. Most realtors won't take clients to see a place that is conditionally sold.

After the open house, there would probably be multiple offers, even a bidding war but they would probably all be conditional. Your friends would most likely be outbid and sad that they didn't get to start building equity. After people get outbid and depressed a few times, they do stupid things. One of those things is removing the inspection conditions right off the bat. That saves the seller the hassle of having their place off the market for a week while you do your inspection, they don't have to negotiate further when an inspector finds flaws and they can deny knowing about any problems that arise if they did do an inspection and came back with something major.

If the house wasn't going to have anything come up during the inspection, you'd be stupid to close before the open house. They'd be missing out on a huge potential bidding war in Toronto's hot market. If the house does have major problems, it's very advantageous to take a quick offer with no inspection.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 15:51

DailyDumSum: May 21, 2004; Fresh Daily

I'm thinking of purchasing a condo in Toronto. Please point to resources where it would show me that it is a bad idea.

For reference, it's a 2 bed + 2 bath for 450K.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 15:52

triplexpac: Mar 24, 2007; Suck it
Two tears in a bucket
And then another thing
I'm not the one they'll try their luck with
Hit hard like brass knuckles
See your face through the turnbuckle dude
I got no love for you

Ikantski posted:

Most people do a conditional offer that gives the buyer a week or two to do a home inspection, secure the mortgage and ensure they can get insurance. There may be some other conditions as well. After that time, you make your final offer that has the conditions removed and maybe a little more negotiating to fix stuff that came up in the inspection. Most realtors won't take clients to see a place that is conditionally sold.

Oh I guess I forgot to mention that she told me that their offer was unconditional

# ? Sep 26, 2014 15:53

ZenVulgarity: Oct 9, 2012; I made the hat by transforming my zen

My girlfriend's family just sold a poo poo house for around $500,000. When my family was in a similat situation in selling a bubble house in Florida, they decided to rent until housing prices crashed. They got lucky in some ways since the market crashed in only a year after sale.

How would a prospective homeowner in Toronto handle the given market? Every indicator I look at and the thread here thinks a crash is inevitable, but what does a family do in the meantime? Rent for x years?

# ? Sep 26, 2014 15:54

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Yeah, rent, it owns. Depending the rent/buy ratio in your city even if you want to buy you're still better off renting for like 20+ years, like you come out ahead financially even if there isn't a crash.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 15:58

ZenVulgarity: Oct 9, 2012; I made the hat by transforming my zen

Baronjutter posted:

Yeah, rent, it owns. Depending the rent/buy ratio in your city even if you want to buy you're still better off renting for like 20+ years, like you come out ahead financially even if there isn't a crash.

I know they're very intent on buying (rent/buy ratio or not) but it's more trying to make sure they don't get a house that will suddenly in six months drop to 50% of it's inflated value.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:02

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

People won't even buy a $1.99 todo list app without studiously examining reviews and carefully weighing options, and yet people do unconditional offers on loving half a mill or more houses? This is absolutely insane.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:09

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

I guess just keep us posted with whatever hilarious deficiencies were covered up by drywall and paint. It's pretty easy to work out the logic here.

1. The sellers got an unconditional offer before the open house. That tells them me their place would have received a lot of interest after the open house.
2. They could have potentially ended up with an offer 100k higher in a bidding war but with an inspection.
3. The sellers decided that $685k > ( $690k + potential bidding war - inspection)

So figure that the renovations required are going to be a bare minimum of 20k with potential to be much, much higher.

If you want to find out if a house is solid, you can just ask the seller "Would you sell this place for a discount if we skipped the inspection?". If the answer is yes, run away.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:11

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

These friends on yours are rich bankers right?

# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:12

peter banana: Sep 2, 2008; Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

ZenVulgarity posted:

I know they're very intent on buying (rent/buy ratio or not) but it's more trying to make sure they don't get a house that will suddenly in six months drop to 50% of it's inflated value.

that might be what happens though? oh gently caress, your poor friend.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:18

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

Baronjutter posted:

Yeah, rent, it owns. Depending the rent/buy ratio in your city even if you want to buy you're still better off renting for like 20+ years, like you come out ahead financially so long as you do something useful with the savings realized as a renter even if there isn't a crash.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:38

triplexpac: Mar 24, 2007; Suck it
Two tears in a bucket
And then another thing
I'm not the one they'll try their luck with
Hit hard like brass knuckles
See your face through the turnbuckle dude
I got no love for you

Cultural Imperial posted:

These friends on yours are rich bankers right?

Haha nope not at all!

It's an interesting case study anyway, since my wife and I want a house someday but aren't financially set up to do it anytime soon. We can observe our friends and see how it all goes for them.

# ? Sep 26, 2014 16:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 07:19

ZenVulgarity: Oct 9, 2012; I made the hat by transforming my zen

peter banana posted:

that might be what happens though? oh gently caress, your poor friend.

Of course when I bring up anything I get "you're bot from Toronto!" from the homeowners.

Because I need to live there to understand economic cycles with plenty of available data? :shrug:

But we hate the idea of renting is not a good reason to lose several hundred thousand dollars!

# ? Sep 26, 2014 17:11

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

«‹›1518 »