|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/east-vancouver-mental-health-home-for-youth-raising-neighbourhood-concerns-1.2819208 Today in our property values.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
http://www.vancourier.com/vancouver-votes/opinion/opinion-jane-jacobs-vision-lost-among-vancouver-s-high-towers-1.1456021 jane jacobs, richard florida, sam sullivan, mayor moonbeam blah blah blah
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Something like this? https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2489979,-123.1201808,3a,71.8y,169.8h,89.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sbhwrE08xtR3drUvP8Mdnwg!2e0 Neither of those are McMansions as I understand it -- both of those are expensive custom built houses (which obviously doesn't disqualify them from being ugly). That also disqualifies most of the properties in Vancouver where someone tore down a Vancouver special to build a huge whole-lot house. If you want a real McMansion you have to go out to some of the new developments in Langley or Surrey where they have row upon row of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://www.vancourier.com/vancouver-votes/opinion/opinion-jane-jacobs-vision-lost-among-vancouver-s-high-towers-1.1456021 What's funny is that his quotations in here directly contradict the poo poo he was spewing on stage the other night. blah_blah posted:Neither of those are McMansions as I understand it -- both of those are expensive custom built houses (which obviously doesn't disqualify them from being ugly). Look again, that's two shots of the same house. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Rime posted:Look again, that's two shots of the same house. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Best part of the video: "You can do this without needing money, credit, or experience!"   Shoeshine!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:They were in Halifax a couple months ago, sounded very scammy I love how the crowd for the sales pitch is mainly obese people or really old people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Dr. Witherbone posted:Listen up vancouver! If you're looking to make more money and take control of your personal and financial future, then get ready, because Than Merrill, the star of A&E's hit TV show Flip This House, one of the most successful Real Estate Investors in the country, America's #1 real estate expert, has one HECK of an opportunity for you! Click Now! Opportunity For You! Than is hosting a free, local, two hour real estate investing workshop, where you can learn his three step system for getting started flipping homes, and buying and holding income properties!!!!!! I hear this commercial nearly every time the radio does ads, and they've been playing them for over 2 years now. The best part isn't that it says it can do it without money, it says it can do it without YOUR money, as in you can let other people pay for it somehow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
melon cat posted:This reminds me of the 'Rich Dad Poor Dad' scamsrun by Robert Kiyosaki. Same BS- it's a "get-rich" quick scheme that targets broke, older people. It was torn apart by CBC Marketplace. The most appalling part of their undercover investigation was when the seminars employees convinced these people to call up their banks to request credit card limit increases so they could have enough money to toss into sketchy, worthless real estate. To be fair he wasn't running them directly, they were contracted out to some lovely scammy company. Not that that makes it any better, but it shows he was at least smarter than your average seminar scammer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Rime posted:To be fair he wasn't running them directly, they were contracted out to some lovely scammy company. Not that that makes it any better, but it shows he was at least smarter than your average seminar scammer. No, it just gives him plausible deniability. When confronted with abuses that line his scammer pockets he can say, "Well I am just as upset as you are!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2014/10/team-case-study-on-winning-and-losing-bidding-wars/quote:Earlier this month, we launched a series documenting our CMO’s experiences with buying her first home in Toronto. We started by sharing some of the financial decisions Kerri-Lynn (KL) and her partner made, as well as what it was like to go to viewings and decide what type of home they wanted to buy. This week, she and I chatted about all the bidding wars she found herself in – and how she finally “won” her dream home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
I am not sure what's worse really, no inspection or believing the sellers inspection on a no subject offer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
.
melon cat fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Mar 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:I am not sure what's worse really, no inspection or believing the sellers inspection on a no subject offer. And they say markets are rational.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2014/10/team-case-study-on-winning-and-losing-bidding-wars/ This is like a retarded nightmare. quote:I also think we’d also just gotten to the point where we had to decide to go all-in – like really all-in, with as much as we could – because we just wanted to buy a house and move on with our lives. Ironic because by going "all-in" they've only ensured that they're going to live with the consequences of that horrible decision for the rest of their lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2014/10/team-case-study-on-winning-and-losing-bidding-wars/ Is that the friend you described or is this just really common in Toronto? I seem to hear about unconditional offers more frequently in Toronto than Vancouver or anywhere else. ocrumsprug posted:I am not sure what's worse really, no inspection or believing the sellers inspection on a no subject offer. I'd say it's mathematiclaly worse to believe the seller's inspection. It can only make the house more expensive as other stupid Toronto buyers will also trust it and it's effectively worth the same amount as no inspection at all. quote:Some people still feel more confident commissioning their own inspection, but that can get expensive when you end up participating in multiple bidding wars. This is just wrong right? You're only paying for the inspection if they accept your conditional offer. You wouldn't pay for it while you're still in a bidding war. Also, holy poo poo I can't wait to read this kid's "ultimate moving checklist". Step 1, offer way over asking price, CHECK. Increase the offer again, CHECK. Blindly increase it one last time, CHECK. Trust the seller's home inspection because those things get expensive anyway, CHECK. The all-in analogy is amazing because they've effectively done that without looking at their cards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Hey Baronjutter there's an online activex GIS tool that one could use for Vancouver Island, I used it a whole bunch a while back when property buying, but I can't remember the name now, whats it called?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Is that the friend you described or is this just really common in Toronto? I seem to hear about unconditional offers more frequently in Toronto than Vancouver or anywhere else. I'm guessing it's just common in Toronto? If people are making offers on houses and taking it unconditionally, then yeah I guess in a weird way it does make it impossible to buy a house if you want to do an inspection yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I'm guessing it's just common in Toronto? It's very common in Toronto's desirable areas to go with a no condition offer when multiple offers are present. You won't win with conditions. It's pretty common for the seller to have an inspection done prior, and it is usually available for pick-up at open house. Usually they are done by the big name firms around here like Carson-Dunlop. I'm not aware of them biasing the report in the seller's favour, seems actionable to me if you could prove it. The truth is that home inspections the way they usually happen are pretty loving over-rated. 90% of the things you'll want to know about a house are not knowable without tearing down finishes, which most home inspectors don't do (and you can't do if you're having it done on a prospective buy). The amount of stuff they can actually see, especially if the basement is finished, is pretty limited. Check the attic for insulation, ventilation and mould, check the roof and eaves, water drainage, pressure, age of appliances and are the plugs all grounded etc. All things anyone can do themselves really. Also, anyone can become a home inspector really quickly, and there are loads of dummies working out there (watch Mike Holmes go off on his show regularly) Of course it makes sense to have an inspection, but they won't eliminate surprises. Saltin fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
I used to assist a home inspector around here when I was younger (taking his notes on a palm pilot while he went around) and he had all kinds of sweet stuff like a sensor to test for moisture behind gyp rock and one of those infrared cameras to see cold spots and stuff. Seemed like pretty useful stuff, usually people used it to drop their offer though rather than be afraid to buy (a lot of the houses around here are old and lovely so I guess they thought why not).
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I'm guessing it's just common in Toronto? When a family member sold their Vancouver house there were like 25+ offers in one weekend. They took the one with no subjects even though the dollar amount was slightly lower. No subjects are not at all uncommon in Vancouver.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Do people lose their senses the more zeroes you ad to a number? Does it become so large that's imaginary to them? TAKE MY "MONEY" I DON'T CARE WHAT THE HOUSE IS LIKE
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Do people lose their senses the more zeroes you ad to a number? Does it become so large that's imaginary to them? I think people see incredibly large sums of money and valuable items as being immutable, something that will endure, so they don't worry about it as much as, say, a pair of jeans they might not have tried on before buying e: I mean, hell, people regularly equate like products that have a higher price-tag as being of higher quality by price alone
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
It's the Bikeshed Problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:It's the Bikeshed Problem. Interesting, but not really what I meant. That implies that they recognize the non-trivial aspect of it and instead choose to focus on other things, I'm saying that people don't recognize that a larger price-tag doesn't imply better quality, or rather - that there's a gap in reasoning where large sums of money are concerned; how could someone market something worth so much if it's garbage?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:Interesting, but not really what I meant. That implies that they recognize the non-trivial aspect of it and instead choose to focus on other things, I'm saying that people don't recognize that a larger price-tag doesn't imply better quality, or rather - that there's a gap in reasoning where large sums of money are concerned; how could someone market something worth so much if it's garbage? I'm just saying that the concern applied to spending is often inversely proportionate to the values involved. These same people would likely agonize over a $1000 investment in an index ETF, say. Your point is also true, and also totally irrational. People simply cannot grasp the idea the prices have a very loose relationship to input costs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Hey Baronjutter there's an online activex GIS tool that one could use for Vancouver Island, I used it a whole bunch a while back when property buying, but I can't remember the name now, whats it called? Well I found it, it was called CRD atlas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
The provinces social housing branch, BC Housing, has a brave new strategy for taking care of those less fortunate in BC: Selling all our social housing units to the wealthy and telling the poor to go gently caress themselves! quote:Other public-housing properties will also be on the auction block. By March 31, 2015, B.C. Housing expects to have transferred ownership of about 115 of its approximately 350 properties to nonprofits. The rest will be disposed of over the next three years. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Well I found it, it was called CRD atlas. A lot of muni's have their own version of this, but it's all basically the same data and photos plus a terrible interface.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Rime posted:The provinces social housing branch, BC Housing, has a brave new strategy for taking care of those less fortunate in BC: That's what you get for being a rentailure. Only the brave, proudful owners deserve housing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Rime posted:The provinces social housing branch, BC Housing, has a brave new strategy for taking care of those less fortunate in BC: At the risk of sounding like a fool – why the gently caress would they do this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:At the risk of sounding like a fool – why the gently caress would they do this? Budgetary reasons would be my guess. Need to balance that budget yo!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:At the risk of sounding like a fool – why the gently caress would they do this? Short term profit and politics. Agencies like that can lose sight of their core function over time and new management/leadership begins to only care about the bottom line or short term political gain. Often agencies like this also get sabotaged by appointing ideological allies in top positions to make horrible choices like this or run the agency into the ground so it's easier to shut down/sell off later (see Canada Post)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:run the agency into the ground so it's easier to shut down/sell off later (see Canada Post) I wasn't paying attention to politics at the time (engineering school) but was there any sort of uproar about Deepak Chopra being appointed as Canada Post head? The writing must have obviously been on the wall...
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:I wasn't paying attention to politics at the time (engineering school) but was there any sort of uproar about Deepak Chopra being appointed as Canada Post head? The writing must have obviously been on the wall... Yeah, but none of it reported on really. For those in the knows the writing was clearly on the wall. Canada post was running a profit and delivering an important public service, it was an efficient publicly owned entity doing its job, thus an extremely dangerous thing to exist. Deepak was clearly on a mission to go in and "run it like a business" ie bloat management and focus on corporate buzzwords instead of the core service, oops suddenly it's losing money and there needs to be cuts and rate hikes. How to stem this problem? More private sector snake oil and cargo cult management. Now it's held up as a poster child for bloated government services and how public ownership can't do anything right. It's sort of similar to BC ferries. Take a fairly essential service, fill it with "run it like a business" poo poo heads who focus on marketing and image management instead of efficiently delivering service, and watch them run it into the ground with bloat and mismanagement. Even locally BC transit has been run by a Deepak style BC Liberal plant doing his best to gently caress everything up. None of these people ever have experience with the service they are appointed to run, all their have is maybe a management background and a strong ideological loyalty to neo-liberal economic theory (and of course the party that appointed them). Sometimes I wish the heads of various key government services were elected, but on the flip side I never want to be like the US with judges and sheriffs being elected. But since these people are all talentless political appointees already, voting them in wouldn't be a downgrade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Lexicon posted:At the risk of sounding like a fool – why the gently caress would they do this? In the words of Rich Coleman, Vice-Premier and Housing Minister: "The province should not be in the business of providing housing." Citation being an interview during the Portland Hotel kerfuffle, which I can't find at the moment. 300 buildings x $1m-$50m allows the Liberals to fake the budget nicely, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:10
|
|