|
James Baud posted:There's actually a geographical limitation on this - in BC, you need only declare employment income from sources that do business in the jurisdiction you're running for. Some people's jobs won't count. Ah, you are correct. Still, it's hard to imagine owning 4 properties in Vancouver that wouldn't let you live off your rent income. So I will continue saying she is part of the rentier class.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Entorwellian posted:Heard that one of the Canadians that China arrested was a guy who did business dealings with Kim Jong Un, and the news was trying to make it out that he was a successful entrepreneur as a reason why he was a good guy and should be rescued!??! I mean, three-quarters of the world's mining companies base themselves out of Canada because we're so permissive about their environmental and human rights violations, so... https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/wdb4j5/75-of-the-worlds-mining-companies-are-based-in-canada
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Change this thread title to "Some municipal election that only affects like a 3 block radius in Vancouver megathread". 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
The debt bubble thread has been CanPol Pacific since time immemorial
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
Sometimes I think about distorting the St Johns real estate market by buying a $250K house in the heart of downtown with my
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Change this thread title to "Some municipal election that only affects like a 3 block radius in Vancouver megathread". Spoken like a person familiar with cocksucker conventions. Femtosecond posted:Sometimes I think about distorting the St Johns real estate market by buying a $250K house in the heart of downtown with my Maybe one of the most extreme buyer's markets in the entire country right now. The number of listings is insane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
To be fair, it would seem like it would be hard to coordinate blowjobs at cocksuckers' convention. Presumably all attendees would be interested in sucking cock, with comparatively few interested in receiving a blowjob.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
AHV finances: http://www.abundanthousingvancouver.com/finances
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
who are their directors?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:To be fair, it would seem like it would be hard to coordinate blowjobs at cocksuckers' convention. Presumably all attendees would be interested in sucking cock, with comparatively few interested in receiving a blowjob. Wouldnt a cocksucker convention be more about sharing findings and case studys with others in the field? Like not much dentistry happens at a dentists convention, why would cocksucking symposiums be any different
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
look just because your friend deluded himself into working as an astroturfer doesn't mean you need to also delude yourself, or try to involve random other people in the delusion. no sale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
Majuju posted:who are their directors? follow-up questions: where's their constitution? their bylaws? annual reports?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
I can't wait to see what happens when we finally have affordable housing and it turns out density has absolutely no effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Wouldnt a cocksucker convention be more about sharing findings and case studys with others in the field? Like not much dentistry happens at a dentists convention, why would cocksucking symposiums be any different Another good point. And thus we see there are many reasons why it would be difficult to organize a blowjob at a cocksucker convention; checkmate, oilpatch trashman!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
Majuju posted:follow-up questions: where's their constitution? their bylaws? annual reports? Majuju posted:who are their directors? Fair questions. The roster on their webpage is not very helpful is it. THC posted:look just because your friend deluded himself into working as an astroturfer doesn't mean you need to also delude yourself, or try to involve random other people in the delusion. no sale. There's every chance that what you're saying is true and self-evident, but I'm not familiar enough with housing stuff to say. Again, can anyone point me to a project AHV has supported that's bad?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
MCPeePants posted:Fair questions. The roster on their webpage is not very helpful is it. I mean, here is an example of a real grassroots organisation, the Vancouver Tenants Union: https://www.vancouvertenantsunion.ca/about The bottom of that page has a link to the constitution and bylaws, including a "plain-English" version. The first link on the menu at the top is to join up. Anyone can become a member for $1/year. And here is an example of an astroturf organisation, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/canadian-taxpayer-federation-opinion-lamont-1.3802441 For balance, here's the CTF's own (laughable) explanation of why they need to have a board of directors but no members and a completely secret list of donors. Right now, the AHV looks like a small group of concerned people who threw some of their own money together and bought a NationBuilder subscription. That said, there isn't much to distinguish them from the CTF at this stage. I'll be happy to start listening to them once they open up membership, get a constitution and start holding elections. Lead out in cuffs fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
THC posted:look just because your friend deluded himself into working as an astroturfer doesn't mean you need to also delude yourself, or try to involve random other people in the delusion. no sale. fine, so point me to something concrete then Mrs. Wynand fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:
That's pretty much what it looks like, minus the nationbuilder subscription. Like, as far as I can tell, it's basically just: the yimby people themselves, their name/brand, a website and a slack group, the occassional shwag. That's it. quote:That said, there isn't much to distinguish them from the CTF at this stage. quote:I'll be happy to start listening to them once they open up membership, get a constitution and start holding elections. I'm pretty sure you can just hit them up on Twitter and get into their slack and that's pretty much the extent of "membership". WTF would they have elections on? Who gets to update the website?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Look fellas, I'm not saying there isn't a reason to be suspicious of their motives - there is. For all I know there are actual developer shills within the group - I dunno, I'm not part of it. But I don't see them acting like it. Why would they come against the Metrotown area densification if they were? Like, if you take a look at what kind of poo poo groups like the CTF put out, it is not at all subtle. Having interests that are aligned with developers is a valid reason to be suspicious, but you need to actually follow up that suspicion with an actual instance of the group acting in a way that would benefit developers at the expense of people. If you can point me to such instances, I will change my mind. As for having more units / density not being part of the solution at all - I just disagree. I do agree it's not the primary driver of the affordability crisis, but that doesn't mean I don't still want density and more units. There are plenty of people I know, and I'm sure plenty of people you know, that already GTFO this awful city long ago, because they aren't morons like us. It would be nice if there was plenty enough housing that they could come back. It would be nice if my parents wouldn't need to leave town (and probably country) the moment they retire since they don't own property here. The "empty investment property" count is still at most around 8%. Even if we nationalize all housing now and guillotine all the rich, there are still more people that want to live and work here than there actually are units. Again, I don't think that's the main cause of the affordability crisis, just part of it. What I really don't get is that the alternatives to the things AHV is for are clearly awful. Like YIMBYs might be deluded - but NIMBYs are just FYGM assholes. If not density, is it not urban sprawl? Or are we saying we actually don't want people moving into the city? Like - what exactly is the thing you want in lieu of more and denser housing? No new housing at all? I'm not asking anyone to start supporting this group. Your volunteer time is better spent with the VTU. But I really truly don't see why they can't be an ally. Very open to change my mind about this if I'm missing anything, I just don't see what right now. As far as I can tell, AHV's image problem is primarily because the label has that same vibe as "mens rights activism" or "all lives matter" - in that, the surface offering seems reasonable enough, but it seems willfully ignorant of context. But those initially gained legitimacy specifically because on the surface, there is nothing wrong with these sort of broad calls to action - they gained their reputation only after having demonstrated in no uncertain terms that "men's rights" is to mean "at the expense of women's rights" and "all lives matter" is to mean "but black people's lives matter less". AHV hasn't made any such motions that I could see. It's not "abundant housing, but only nice luxury housing" or "except for poor people". I am also, by the way, not saying "wah wah, why is the AHV so shat upon". I absolutely get why. Looking at label and general mission only, I was suspicious too. I do think they need to come out as more actively and aggressively aligned with people fighting for affordability if they want to shake this stink (and probably change their name too). It's their own responsibility to clearly signal what they are all about. But we're looking at the actual details of their org ITT, beyond just name and mission - so why the opposition? I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Look fellas, I'm not saying there isn't a reason to be suspicious of their motives - there is. For all I know there are actual developer shills within the group - I dunno, I'm not part of it. But I don't see them acting like it. Why would they come against the Metrotown area densification if they were? Like, if you take a look at what kind of poo poo groups like the CTF put out, it is not at all subtle. their opposition to the metrotown plan isn't anywhere on either their blog, or their list of letter-writing campaigns. they have a few tweets from 2017, I guess that's what you're referring to? quote:Having interests that are aligned with developers is a valid reason to be suspicious, but you need to actually follow up that suspicion with an actual instance of the group acting in a way that would benefit developers at the expense of people. If you can point me to such instances, I will change my mind. organizing your advocacy around uncritical support for all forms of densification means acting as useful idiots for developers. again: AHV is saying the system is working correctly, we just need to increase the Housing Number and it'll fix affordability. but starts and completions have been at record highs for the past several years and affordability has only worsened. quote:As for having more units / density not being part of the solution at all - I just disagree. I do agree it's not the primary driver of the affordability crisis, but that doesn't mean I don't still want density and more units. There are plenty of people I know, and I'm sure plenty of people you know, that already GTFO this awful city long ago, because they aren't morons like us. It would be nice if there was plenty enough housing that they could come back. It would be nice if my parents wouldn't need to leave town (and probably country) the moment they retire since they don't own property here. The "empty investment property" count is still at most around 8%. Even if we nationalize all housing now and guillotine all the rich, there are still more people that want to live and work here than there actually are units. Again, I don't think that's the main cause of the affordability crisis, just part of it. I'm gonna wrap all these together and succinctly say: build social housing. build public rentals managed by the city. stop handing over sweetheart deals for oakridge and false creek and the RCMP lands to for-profit developers and build public housing there instead. start expropriating illegal airbnbs. use eminent domain to take control of the shaughnessy parcels that have Mysterious House Fires and build public housing there. decommodify housing as much as possible. quote:As far as I can tell, AHV's image problem is primarily because the label has that same vibe as "mens rights activism" or "all lives matter" - in that, the surface offering seems reasonable enough, but it seems willfully ignorant of context. But those initially gained legitimacy specifically because on the surface, there is nothing wrong with these sort of broad calls to action - they gained their reputation only after having demonstrated in no uncertain terms that "men's rights" is to mean "at the expense of women's rights" and "all lives matter" is to mean "but black people's lives matter less". AHV hasn't made any such motions that I could see. It's not "abundant housing, but only nice luxury housing" or "except for poor people". again, and once more, it's because they offer no more complicated policy position than "build more housing", which means "do what we're doing now, only more of it". they're *abundant* housing vancouver, not *affordable* housing vancouver. their logo might as well be a house doing  they're totally reactive, have no policy proposals of their own, back no political candidates, and are seemingly incapable of looking past the established system to imagine an even slightly better way of moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
The notion that Abundant Housing Vancouver are a secret Real Estate developer funded astroturfer group is purestrain  . It's pretty clear from the twitter activity of the individual members that it's a real deal "group of concerned citizens" that aren't connected to the FIRE industry. Whatever organizational deficiencies their organization may have versus others is more likely indicative of the tiny nature of it and their non-organized labour background than something sinister.MCPeePants posted:I also have a pal in AHV, and my experience aligns fairly closely with Mr. Wynand's. I'm not well enough informed on the subject to refute what you're saying here, but something that pal has pointed out to me is that generally speaking, AHV is the only group showing up to public hearings for social housing projects, arguing with nimbys. Big ask for an internet stranger, but can you give me an example of a project they've supported that is bad? I can't really think of any. Here's an (I think?) AHV member (who has some demand side cred for her masters thesis on Airbnb impact on Vancouver) on this: https://twitter.com/karensawa/status/1074429385606742016 While we're criticizing AHV for "staying in their lane" and only talking about supply, why aren't we criticizing demand sider org HALT for the same thing, for not showing up to support purpose built rental projects? Of course the answer is why would HALT show up? They favour the status quo, but just want prices of houses to drop enough so that they can buy them themselves. There's a huge disconnect here where the critics of AHV are thinking about huge Westbank tower projects being sold to investors in Hong Kong, meanwhile AHV is going to public hearings to speak in favour of about mid rise purpose built rental projects and duplex zoning. AHV is a big tent organization that certainly seems include market urbanists that I assume favour tower development, but their on the ground advocacy seems to me to be driven by supporting purpose built rental, a general hatred of Single Family Homes and a goal of shattering the concept of exclusionary zoning. Ironically for those that are criticizing AHV as developer shills the policies that AHV is putting forward are actually bad for the big developers that are selling VanRE offshore. The big companies like Onni/Westbank/Bosa etc are designed around big rezone projects and guiding projects through the tricky and opaque city process. If AHV got their wish, small scale projects such as fourplexes and four story apartments would be allowed by right city wide, which would allow smaller scale developers and landowners to enter the market. Someone who owns a SFH could hire an architect and small builder and do their own fourplex project themselves. This new competition would be pretty disruptive to the big players. As a big tent org in addition to the rental supporters there are market urbanists involved with some questionable opinions. I think the closest I can think of to AHV supporting a bad project would be back when the Kettle deal collapsed and the two market urbanist AHV members that were considering running for NPA or what would eventually become YES Vancouver jumped in with some strong opinions on the side of the developer. However this was more two individuals testing out some pre-election feedback more than actual AHV policy. https://twitter.com/adriancrook/status/1009463417663512577 https://twitter.com/Scott_dLB/status/1009148579829567493 I do have criticism for Abundant Housing but it's mostly reserved for the market urbanists under their tent that lined up behind YES Vancouver during the election rather than the whole organization (also I'm not gonna get into it because this post is getting pretty long...). Other members were clearly more supportive of OneCity's approach. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Do they take attendance at public hearings? This seems like a ridiculous thing to say for a number of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Do they take attendance at public hearings? This seems like a ridiculous thing to say for a number of reasons. The City counts the number of speakers (and the number of letters) in support of / opposition to any given motion. I don't think Council is obligated to act on those numbers, but they are required to "consider" them in their voting. This is why the Vancouver Tenants Union were pushing so hard to bring out supporters for the motion on renovictions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
People who actually show up to city council votes have a hugely outsized influence on a lot of things, specially development where councilors are on the fence or don't really have a strong passion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2178415/vancouver-home-prices-just-fell-most-2008-extendingquote:Vancouver home prices just fell the most since 2008, extending declines in Canada’s most expensive city Thank you AHV for your service. Clearly your advocacy of greater density is having an effect on deflating the housing market and I eagerly await, with baited breath and strapped on kneepads to suck y'all off for a job well done in bringing Vancouver ever closer to a balanced market of affordable housing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
I love how the South China Morning Post is reporting on Vancouver real estate prices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
World-class city, amirite?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
strictly anecdotally there's a few 2br condos in my area that I recently realized had realtor shingles out front for way too long, and thanks to that zealty site someone linked earlier I can see that they've been on the market for like 3 months now, and one's cut the price by $100k so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Majuju posted:strictly anecdotally there's a few 2br condos in my area that I recently realized had realtor shingles out front for way too long, and thanks to that zealty site someone linked earlier I can see that they've been on the market for like 3 months now, and one's cut the price by $100k so far. Check this out. https://www.myrealtycheck.ca/  Mr Wynand, Femtosecond, please thank your AHV friends for us all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
you can still be a useful idiot for developers, even if you're not cashing cheques from Bob Rennie himself lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Majuju posted:their opposition to the metrotown plan isn't anywhere on either their blog, or their list of letter-writing campaigns. they have a few tweets from 2017, I guess that's what you're referring to? quote:again: AHV is saying the system is working correctly, we just need to increase the Housing Number and it'll fix affordability quote:but starts and completions have been at record highs for the past several years and affordability has only worsened. quote:I'm gonna wrap all these together and succinctly say: build social housing. build public rentals managed by the city. quote:stop handing over sweetheart deals for oakridge and false creek and the RCMP lands to for-profit developers and build public housing there instead. start expropriating illegal airbnbs. use eminent domain to take control of the shaughnessy parcels that have Mysterious House Fires and build public housing there. decommodify housing as much as possible. quote:again, and once more, it's because they offer no more complicated policy position than "build more housing", which means "do what we're doing now, only more of it". they're *abundant* housing vancouver, not *affordable* housing vancouver. It is, however, an image problem, and not a problem with their fundamental policy - at least given available evidence I've seen so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
THC posted:you can still be a useful idiot for developers, even if you're not cashing cheques from Bob Rennie himself lol Just, at your leisure, if you could point me to an instance where they supported anything that would benefit only, or even disproportionately, developers, vs residents - I'm still interested. Even literally just one, so we have something to talk about that isn't just drive-by ice burns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
that lady Femtosecond posted literally said that she was out stanning for market rentals, and attacked critics for not taking the time out of their day to do the same. I've already established my position that if you support any market proposals you're Part of the Problem
Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
THC posted:that lady Femtosecond posted literally said that she was out stanning for market rentals, and attacked critics for not taking the time out of their day to do the same. I've already established my position that if you support any market proposals you're Part of the Problem Your position is that purpose-built rentals disproportionally favor developers? Also do you consider social housing units that are built as a condition of an upzoning license a market proposal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
Yeah pbr is a loving scam at this point. Show me a single dwelling in Vancouver that has a positive cap rate above the overnight rate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Your position is that purpose-built rentals disproportionally favor developers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
THC posted:Yeah because they get the developer to agree to like 10 social housing units for every 100 "affordable" $3000 a month units. Then the project is completed and it turns out, oops! The developer mysteriously only put in half of the promised social units, and now it's too late to do anything about it. This has happened so many loving times that anyone still selling it is either a shill or they're Charlie Brown with the football That's pretty cheap man. City of Vancouver says market-rent should be $3702. Don't leave money on the table!!! https://www.straight.com/news/1039161/city-vancouver-now-defines-3702-rent-affordable-housing
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
there is actually a nice 4br house near Comm-Broad on CL right now renting for just $3k and it's owned by the City. not too bad if you can wrangle up some roommates
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
THC posted:Then the project is completed and it turns out, oops! The developer mysteriously only put in half of the promised social units, and now it's too late to do anything about it. How is it too late to do anything about it? Make them convert other units. They didn’t miss any social units, they just put nicer appliances and countertops in some of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
too late, those already rented out at $3765 a month, nothing we can do folks! its okay we'll get em next time 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 02:38
|
|