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.

Fuzzy Mammal: Aug 15, 2001; Lipstick Apathy

Pretty sure they would ask for a balloon payment to put you back under minimum LTV numbers, not ask you to pay it off entirely. Hopefully the bubble will pop and we'll see in the next while.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 00:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 22:50

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

Fuzzy Mammal posted:

Pretty sure they would ask for a balloon payment to put you back under minimum LTV numbers, not ask you to pay it off entirely. Hopefully the bubble will pop and we'll see in the next while.

I would think hone owners would be in the driver seat if it happened on large scale. Banks would be happy to have someone willing to pay the mortgage while being underwater. Better then masses giving back the keys like in the 80s.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 02:05

Crow Buddy: Oct 30, 2019; Guillotines?!? We don't need no stinking guillotines!

qhat posted:

I would honestly love to see a bank foreclose on an underwater mortgage from a credit worthy borrower just because the LTV has increased. That would be an unbelievably stupid decision on the bank's part.

You are certainly never going to get 'margin' called on a mortgage that is being paid. You may have trouble renewing your mortgage with someone once your term is up, but that is a VERY different thing.

Housing in indisputably the safer 'investment' and the only real question is whether it is in fact the safest possible investment you can make.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 02:52

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Truman Peyote posted:

am I misunderstanding floor space ratio? a 4 floor apartment with a few feet setback seems like it should be easy to reach 2.50, plenty of buildings like that in mount pleasant with underground parking. or does parking apply in some way I'm misunderstanding?

You'd be surprised.

FSR exclusions in Vancouver depend on the zoning district, rather than building it into the definition, so it'll be specific from site-to-site (and therefore impossible to assess without a big deep dive into their CD-1 zoning bylaw regime which sucks).

A four storey building likely wouldn't be able to fully capture 2.5 FSR after required road dedications (including lanes), setbacks, lot coverage, and height. We also have to understand that developers are primarily concerned with *efficient* space, so things like lobbies or hallways can take away from saleable FSR. Can't sell a hallway, after all.

There's also another hard artificial limit - the actual size of the site. While a tower can have dwelling units all around an elevator core on a relatively small site, a typical low slab apartment can only "double load" a corridor (only "two" dwelling units on each side of any given point in a hallway). This is usually not a problem elsewhere in the world, where land is not the premium expense and you can build courtyard style bungalows or apartments - but here in Vancouver, we're very much limited in terms of "usable" lands to actually build the building. A developer can't sink all of their money into making individual land owners rich, so they have to deal with constrained lot sizes vs. a generous FSR with other physical dimension limitations.

...

If you actually want to fix the problem at a municipal level (build supply!!!! lol!!!!), you have to "prezone" and "downzone" the redevelopment potential of land in certain circumstances. You need to find a way to lower the cost of that land and its redevelopment potential, which is just completely unacceptable to the landowning public.

Now that municipalities in BC can actually zone residential tenure (ownership vs. rental), none of them are using this tool to its full potential. if a City truly wanted to make a difference, it would pre-zone SFH lands to either allow (1) an SFD on fee-simple land, or (2) enable multi-unit residential (strata-titled) under a deliberately lower FSR than usual, and (3) enable multi-unit residential (rental - and especially non-market rental) at a deliberately higher FSR to "push down" the relative cost of land.

Really glad that we turned housing into a investment commodity, good job us.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Nov 11, 2021

# ? Nov 11, 2021 03:11

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

not only is housing a financial instrument. we convinced everyone that a lovely negative income illiquid investment is good

# ? Nov 11, 2021 03:32

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

half cocaine posted:

not only is housing a financial instrument. we convinced everyone that a lovely negative income illiquid investment is good

don't forget the complete loving lack of federal support making sure that we have no other choice but to participate in this lovely rear end house of cards lmfao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE3KPWwiRz8

# ? Nov 11, 2021 03:34

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Some Vancouver condos and Calgary houses are technically liquid investments.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 03:58

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

quote:

In the March 1996 federal budget, the government
announced that it would transfer administration of fed-
eral social-housing programs to provinces and territo-
ries, ending 50 years of direct federal involvement in the

administration of social-housing programs. This was a
unilateral policy decision, not the settlement of a legal
or constitutional dispute over jurisdic-

tion. It was also a financial decision �
a means of saving money at the fed-
eral level. This policy decision handed

responsibility to the provinces, and
some provinces passed it on to mu-
nicipalities. The federal government

would no longer be responsible for the
stream of subsidies once the initial
funding packages for the approxi-
mately 500,000 social-housing units
expired.
Most provincial and territorial
policies and program changes also
represent a withdrawal from helping
those most in need. It is important,

however, to place provincial and terri-
torial budget cuts in housing, social
spending, and urban affairs in the context of the federal

government�s downloading of the deficit onto provincial
taxpayers. Federal cash transfers to the provinces and
territories have been falling since the early 1980s. Huge

amounts of money that were once transferred to prov-
inces and territories were unilaterally withdrawn. The
money had previously been used for health, education,

and welfare programs (some federal funding, particu-
larly for health care, has since been restored).
This reduction in transfer payments has made it
more difficult for provinces and territories to replace
federal cuts in social-housing spending should they wish
to do so. Most provinces have avoided social-housing

spending, except for Quebec and, until recently, British
Columbia, although from time to time, some provinces
have played an active role in housing. Between 1985

and 1995, for example, Ontario played a significant role
in adding to the social-housing stock of the province.
The federal government during the 1990s not only
cut the transfer payments to provinces, but also reduced
its direct spending on housing, thereby saving the
Treasury about $1.5 billion a year. The current $2 bil-
lion of federal money spent annually on housing (1 per-

cent of total federal spending) pays for subsidies on
about 550,000 social housing units that were built be-
fore the 1993 termination of the federal role in subsidiz-
ing new social housing units. Dismantling the social-
housing supply program also meant that provinces and

municipalities had to bear the indirect costs of inade-
quate housing and homelessness. These include the
costs of physical and mental health care, emergency

shelters and services, and policing.
It is politics � policy decisions by the government
of the day, under the specific realities of the times � and
not any legal or constitutional con-

straints that define the federal and
provincial roles in housing. Fur-
thermore, decisions are made in the

context of a historical continuity
that privileges housing interven-
tions in the ownership sector and

interventions that conform with and
are supportive of the market. And
the provision of social housing and
programs to help impoverished and
homeless households are very ex-

pensive.
There is no legal or constitu-
tional impediment to federal or
provincial governments engaging in

any variety of housing policies and
programs. The federal and provin-
cial governments have historically engaged in many dif-

ferent programs, both unilateral and joint. The jurisdic-
tional issue appears to be significant only because poli-
ticians raise it when they do not want their level of gov-

ernment to be responsible for addressing a particular
housing problem

and here i am reading the Canadian Debt Thread telling me it's all because supply is too low

have i been lied to?????????????

# ? Nov 11, 2021 04:17

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

half cocaine posted:

and here i am reading the Canadian Debt Thread telling me it's all because supply is too low

have i been lied to?????????????

Number must go up.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 04:26

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

quote:

For the primary part of the housing system, the fed-
eral and provincial governments will continue to play an
interventionist role during difficult economic times. The
house-building sector is a key part of the economy and,
with the support of middle-class owners, is able to
mount an effective lobby. Federal government housing
activity relating to the primary sector, whether direct
(budgetary spending programs) or indirect (tax expendi-
tures), is rarely considered to be a subsidy or a drain on
the economy or on the federal budget. Rather, these ac-
tions are viewed as the proper responsibility of govern-
ment in difficult times, and the subsidies are considered
incentives and entitlements �as rights associated with
investing in and owning housing.

For example, consider the federal government�s de-
cision, announced in the 1992 budget, to introduce the
Home Buyers� Plan, which allows house buyers to use
up to $20,000 in tax-sheltered retirement savings as part

of their down payment. This move was resisted by fed-
eral officials because it put retirement savings at risk
and introduced a windfall benefit for some house buy-

ers, and because there was no evidence that such incen-
tives do anything more than move demand for new
houses forward (that is, there is no long-term net gain
for the economy). But the pressure �to do something�
during a severe construction slump had become so great
that the federal government granted the demands of the
house-building and real estate lobbies. In the same
budget, however, social housing was cut from the ex-
pected 12,400 units to about 8,000, and the co-op hous-
ing program (about 3,500 units) was terminated. All so-
cial-housing supply programs were terminated in the
next budget.

Housing plays such an important role in the econ-
omy that, during recessions in particular, both the fed-
eral and provincial governments have a consistent re-
cord of introducing short-term programs that most often
are focused on assisting ownership and tenants in the
high end of the rental market (the primary part of the
housing system), particularly those who are able to buy
a house. This type of federal housing program activity
results from economic and housing market conditions
and the stronger political clout of actors in the primary
part of the housing system.

this is some good poo poo Hubbert. Thanks

# ? Nov 11, 2021 04:26

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

quote:

In the end, the debate over whether and how to ad-
dress housing needs and homelessness is a political
problem, and there is no scientific or objective way to

arrive at an answer to a political problem. The nature of
the problem is well understood, and potential programs
are not complicated or even very expensive for a coun-
try with Canada�s wealth. The question about serious
and effective government action on current housing and
urban problems is a question about political will. What
pressure is there for government to address homeless-
ness? Why worry about poor-quality housing for poor
people, urban and rural? There seems to be no economic

or significant political pressure to address problems in
the secondary part of the housing system. It is, by defi-
nition, secondary � not primary. All three levels of gov-
ernment will continue to worry about problems as they
arise among households in the primary part of the hous-
ing system. The major change affecting the �welfare
state� and the sense of nationhood since the early 1990s
may mean that the secondary part of the housing system
does not matter at all.

no you see it's supply and

# ? Nov 11, 2021 04:29

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

half cocaine posted:

no you see it's supply and

yes i thought it was time to blow up the nuclear hot YIMBY takes and actually talk about housing policy more generally

you have the right to buy housing in canada, nothing more

# ? Nov 11, 2021 04:29

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

Hubbert posted:

yes i thought it was time to blow up the nuclear hot YIMBY takes and actually talk about housing policy more generally

you have the right to buy housing in canada, nothing more

hulchanski is nimby

# ? Nov 11, 2021 04:47

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

half cocaine posted:

hulchanski is nimby

the city is the landlord here, and this land contains hundreds of co-op units

sticky situation for a city councillor to not listen to the public here

# ? Nov 11, 2021 04:57

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

anyways supply really is a problem and we should really be pre-zoning everything IMMEDIATELY

# ? Nov 11, 2021 06:40

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

half cocaine posted:

hulchanski is nimby

ok lets actually look at the article together

quote:

Thousands of residents in False Creek South living in multi-family buildings on land owned by the City of Vancouver have been facing uncertainty for years over the question of whether their long-term leases will be renewed.

But a city councillor now wants that changed much sooner than later.

If approved, a motion by TEAM councillor Colleen Hardwick would direct city staff to �immediately� proceed with lease extensions for all strata leaseholds and then engage in lease renewal negotiations, as well as lease renewal for all co-op leaseholds.

Hardwick�s motion also seeks to have existing residents be guaranteed security of tenure at a rate affordable to them. She writes that lease renewal policy considerations should be undertaken in public.

False Creek South stretches from east of the Burrard Street Bridge to west of the Cambie Street Bridge. The municipal government�s 80 acres of False Creek South contains about 1,800 homes built in the 1970s and early 1980s. This includes six co-ops totalling 573 homes, four market rental buildings totalling 124 homes, six non-profit rental buildings totalling 455 homes, and 13 strata buildings totalling 669 homes.

An additional 1,354 homes are on land owned by the private sector or other levels of government.

All of the properties on city-owned land are on 60-year leases, set to expire over the next 15 to 25 years � between 2036 and 2046.

�As leases have not yet been negotiated, existing residents are experiencing significant stress after more than a decade of meetings with the City,� reads the motion.

�Residents have nonetheless expressed support in collaborative community planning to densify their neighbourhood and further diversify the social mix to include more youth, Indigenous people, recent immigrants and a �campus of care� with supportive housing for seniors and people who have experienced homelessness.�

This approach, such as �collaborative community planning to densify� and a �campus of care,� are references to a 2019 vision made by the False Creek South Neighbourhood Association (FCSNA) that calls for one million sq ft of new additional floor area for housing and commercial space, including a health services hub for seniors on the current site of False Creek Public Tennis Club. FCSNA�s resident-driven concept would largely be achieved through infill development, while retaining existing buildings through new long-term leases.

As well, Hardwick is asking city staff to conduct False Creek South�s community planning in a manner that is �public, outside the frame of confidentiality, in full collaboration with existing residents and other interest groups, by the City Planning Department, using well-established techniques for neighbourhood planning and public engagement.�

In February 2021, city staff conducted a public consultation on the future of False Creek South and the possibility of providing additional affordable homes and commercial development to foster the Metro Core�s economy. At the time, it was stated that the engagement was being conducted from the municipal government�s landowner perspective � connected but independent from the city�s False Creek South neighbourhood planning program, which was put on hold in 2018.

The city�s properties in False Creek South are under the municipal government�s Property Endowment Fund (PEF), which is managed separately from other city properties for investment purposes. The City of Vancouver owns roughly 700 properties under the PEF across the city, with a combined value of about $5.7 billion, as of 2018.

The False Creek South lands are some of the city�s most valuable properties under the PEF.

City council is scheduled to deliberate Hardwick�s motion as early as Tuesday, October 5.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Nov 11, 2021

# ? Nov 11, 2021 16:47

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Is it really gambling when it's become enormously apparent that literally every level of government and every political party has no interest in doing anything but the status quo of ensuring that SFH values go up?

The government is back stopping your investment.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 19:59

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Only not if you assume that despite their best efforts, government actually has the ability to prevent a wholesale meltdown of that asset class, and it�s not at all clear that would be possible.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 20:04

sleep with the vicious: Apr 2, 2010

I think covid showed that Western governments will absolutely use the levers they have control of the continue the financialization of the entire economy, specifically real estate and the stock market

# ? Nov 11, 2021 20:24

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Hulchanski probably is a nimby, just like how Hardwick is and probably thinks she's a ~progressive~ . Folks don't think there's left-nimbys?

These people are like the urbanist versions 70s era "save the whales" style environmentalists in that their ideas have not been updated in decades and now are irrelevant and unhelpful to the modern issues we're facing. This crowd would suggest months upon months of design charette leading to economically unviable low rise townhouse development. It's not actually going to address our severe housing shortage but they don't actually care to because in their mind design > people.

Peeps in South False Creek benefited from 1970s era Federal funding creating the below market housing they currently benefit from, and, just like lucky home owning boomers, they're trying to pull the ladder up behind them. No change! No new people! Go away. Same mindset.

All the people on the left that spend their time criticizing the economic systems that have created this mess are curiously not lifting a finger to do anything about it.

Is Hardwick out there trying to create new SFC's in other Vancouver neighbourhoods? lol no of course not.

Is so called socialist Jean Swanson suggesting we tax the rich, raze shaughnessy and build public rental housing for the working class? lol nope.

Always easy to snipe at the sidelines at blame the feds for lack of funding, but we just had a federal election and nothing changed. What now? Pragmatic politicians would move on and try to find some way to move forward and build housing for working people, but all these left nimbys are old and comfortably housed so neither they nor anyone they know are actually negatively impacted by the status quo of doing nothing. So they continue on with only fruitless critique being their contribution.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 20:26

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

sleep with the vicious posted:

I think covid showed that Western governments will absolutely use the levers they have control of the continue the financialization of the entire economy, specifically real estate and the stock market

They can't lower rates much further and the spectre of inflation is rearing its head. They can only chant transitory so much.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 20:38

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Femtosecond posted:

Always easy to snipe at the sidelines at blame the feds for lack of funding, but we just had a federal election and nothing changed. What now? Pragmatic politicians would move on and try to find some way to move forward and build housing for working people, but all these left nimbys are old and comfortably housed so neither they nor anyone they know are actually negatively impacted by the status quo of doing nothing. So they continue on with only fruitless critique being their contribution.

if you don't like it, run for Council and make it happen

# ? Nov 11, 2021 20:49

Fuzzy Mammal: Aug 15, 2001; Lipstick Apathy

Purgatory Glory posted:

They can't lower rates much further and the spectre of inflation is rearing its head. They can only chant transitory so much.

If there's some sort of financial pullback just watch them.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 20:59

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
THE SPEECH SUPPRESSOR

Remember: it's "antisemitic" to protest genocide as long as the targets are brown.

Femtosecond posted:

Is it really gambling when it's become enormously apparent that literally every level of government and every political party has no interest in doing anything but the status quo of ensuring that SFH values go up?

The government is back stopping your investment.

If you have confidence that the government will be able to provide you with the inflation-adjusted value of your home, at some arbitrary future point in your life, no matter what, then no, it wouldn't be gambling. Such confidence would be horribly misplaced, however; the U.S. government failed to do the same thing with a relatively smaller bubble, and the Canadian government, which doesn't issue the world's reserve currency, has even less actual power to accomplish that feat.

It's ridiculous that some people believe that housing can continue to grow faster than the broader economy literally forever, even though this leads to absurd conclusions like housing costs eventually being more than 100% of wages. The same idiocy was on display when the Japanese imperial palace grounds were believed to be worth more than the entire state of California.

It is not different this time. At least not in ways that mean the bubble won't pop.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 22:30

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

we can all come together and blame every single level of government and point fingers at anyone we think is responsible too

and nothing would change still

# ? Nov 11, 2021 22:53

MickeyFinn: May 8, 2007; Biggie Smalls and Junior Mafia some mark ass bitches

tagesschau posted:

If you have confidence that the government will be able to provide you with the inflation-adjusted value of your home, at some arbitrary future point in your life, no matter what, then no, it wouldn't be gambling. Such confidence would be horribly misplaced, however; the U.S. government failed to do the same thing with a relatively smaller bubble, and the Canadian government, which doesn't issue the world's reserve currency, has even less actual power to accomplish that feat.

It's ridiculous that some people believe that housing can continue to grow faster than the broader economy literally forever, even though this leads to absurd conclusions like housing costs eventually being more than 100% of wages. The same idiocy was on display when the Japanese imperial palace grounds were believed to be worth more than the entire state of California.

It is not different this time. At least not in ways that mean the bubble won't pop.

It doesn�t have to grow forever, just until the people posting here are in the ground.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 23:21

the talent deficit: Dec 20, 2003; self-deprecation is a very british trait, and problems can arise when the british attempt to do so with a foreign culture

tagesschau posted:

It's ridiculous that some people believe that housing can continue to grow faster than the broader economy literally forever, even though this leads to absurd conclusions like housing costs eventually being more than 100% of wages. The same idiocy was on display when the Japanese imperial palace grounds were believed to be worth more than the entire state of California.

i don't think anyone believes the emphasized. they just believe housing can continue to grow faster than the broader economy long enough for them to profit off of it and cash out

# ? Nov 12, 2021 07:58

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

Yeah even if the ultimate effect is a massive disaster, so many people have already made a massive amount of money off it, including most of the top people in government.

# ? Nov 12, 2021 16:10

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

mila kunis posted:

Yeah even if the ultimate effect is a massive disaster, so many people have already made a massive amount of money off it, including most of the top people in government.

Whats 24 flips between friends?

# ? Nov 12, 2021 16:46

MickeyFinn: May 8, 2007; Biggie Smalls and Junior Mafia some mark ass bitches

mila kunis posted:

Yeah even if the ultimate effect is a massive disaster, so many people have already made a massive amount of money off it, including most of the top people in government.

Housing being an economy-wide pump and dump scam is exactly what the 2020s needs.

# ? Nov 12, 2021 17:36

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
THE SPEECH SUPPRESSOR

Remember: it's "antisemitic" to protest genocide as long as the targets are brown.

MickeyFinn posted:

It doesn�t have to grow forever, just until the people posting here are in the ground.

the talent deficit posted:

i don't think anyone believes the emphasized. they just believe housing can continue to grow faster than the broader economy long enough for them to profit off of it and cash out

I did say "at some arbitrary future point in your life." A lot of people seem to think the government will ensure that they will be able to extract the value they think their home should have, at a time that is convenient for them. The government will not ensure any such thing, if only because it cannot.

# ? Nov 12, 2021 21:17

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Hubbert posted:

if you don't like it, run for Council and make it happen

I don't need to because there's already OneCity's Christine Boyle who is there actually moving the ball forward on the goal of making more housing for renters in Vancouver. I'll be supporting them in the next election. Hopefully after the 2022 there will be a few more like minded people elected to council from the OneCity slate.

Faux progressives like the Greens and Swanson that complain but do nothing need to get out the way and let rental housing actually get built.

# ? Nov 12, 2021 23:41

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

NIMBY socialist big government crippling small mom and pop private equity from making an honest dollar, causing collapse in housing supply

Spain takes on private equity landlords as cost of housing soars https://on.ft.com/2YHK0Lo

# ? Nov 14, 2021 18:34

Albino Squirrel: Apr 25, 2003; Miosis more like meiosis

Currently in Vancouver for the first time in a couple of years and man, every time there's more and more condo buildings that I assume are essentially empty.

Vancouver: So Beautiful You Could Almost Forget The Housing Crisis�

# ? Nov 17, 2021 00:04

Mantle: May 15, 2004

Albino Squirrel posted:

Currently in Vancouver for the first time in a couple of years and man, every time there's more and more condo buildings that I assume are essentially empty.

Vancouver: So Beautiful You Could Almost Forget The Housing Crisis™

This is why I think it's so important to define "supply". Is there really not enough housing in Vancouver or is there actually just not enough housing for sale?

# ? Nov 17, 2021 03:06

Truman Peyote: Oct 11, 2006

there's a lot of 500sqft "one bedroom" apartments where the bedroom has a translucent sliding wall instead of a window, if that's what you mean by "supply"

# ? Nov 17, 2021 04:46

Fidelitious: Apr 17, 2018; MY BIRTH CRY WILL BE THE SOUND OF EVERY WALLET ON THIS PLANET OPENING IN UNISON.

Yep, there's plenty of supply of housing that might be acceptable for a single student.

A family with even just one child? No, that ain't around.

# ? Nov 17, 2021 14:35

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Albino Squirrel posted:

Currently in Vancouver for the first time in a couple of years and man, every time there's more and more condo buildings that I assume are essentially empty.

Vancouver: So Beautiful You Could Almost Forget The Housing Crisis�

They looked into this with BC Hydro data to try to estimate low electricity using homes as empty and found that empty homes are not widespread.

quote:

In 2014, the vacancy rate for the City of Vancouver was 4.8, almost exactly what it was 12 years earlier, when the rate was 4.9 percent in 2002. That�s below the national average of seven percent.

https://www.straight.com/news/653356/empty-homes-study-reveals-10000-vacant-condos-still-fails-explain-vancouver-real-estate

Since then the province has levied a speculation tax which was effectively a tax on not renting your second home, and Vancouver has brought in an empty home tax. The province has noted that thousands upon thousands of new rental has appeared on the market due to these taxes, so presumably the amount of empty homes has plunged even further.

Vacancy is extremely low ~2.6% last I looked. I bet the current numbers of empty homes are at an all time low.

# ? Nov 18, 2021 18:01

Crow Buddy: Oct 30, 2019; Guillotines?!? We don't need no stinking guillotines!

Femtosecond posted:

They looked into this with BC Hydro data to try to estimate low electricity using homes as empty and found that empty homes are not widespread.

Since then the province has levied a speculation tax which was effectively a tax on not renting your second home, and Vancouver has brought in an empty home tax. The province has noted that thousands upon thousands of new rental has appeared on the market due to these taxes, so presumably the amount of empty homes has plunged even further.

Vacancy is extremely low ~2.6% last I looked. I bet the current numbers of empty homes are at an all time low.

I could be mistaken, but if you look at historical vacancy rates (like +5-10 years ago) they were ~1%.

E. v you are correct, I am

Crow Buddy fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Nov 19, 2021

# ? Nov 18, 2021 21:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 22:50

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

Crow Buddy posted:

I could be mistaken, but if you look at historical vacancy rates (like +5-10 years ago) they were ~1%.

I think you're talking about rental vacancy rate, ie dwellings that are intended to be rented but aren't. Femtosecond is talking about the "non-occupancy rate", ie all dwellings that are unoccupied, including holiday homes and such.

Edit; and IIRC there was a slight increase in rental vacancies and a drop in non-occupancy around when the empty homes tax came in.

# ? Nov 18, 2021 23:53

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

«‹›1519 »