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.

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

yeah the reason why we've finally arrived at "build more supply" as literally the only loving solution left is because Vancouver has layered on the following:
* Foreign buyer Tax (now 20%!)
* Speculation Tax (ie. you must rent out your secondary home to avoid)
* CoV empty home tax
* CoV Airbnb regulation (ban on renting your secondary home/laneway house/basement suite)

and all of these demand side measures moved the rental vacancy rate from..... ~1% to ~2.6%. The demand side measures well is dry. To get to a healthy 5%+ vacancy more homes are needed. What else is left on the table?

Not to say that any of the above was a waste of time. Quite the opposite. As a result of these measures thousands of apartments appeared on the market overnight. That's not nothing, but it's clear that the scale of the problem is so much bigger than most imagined and these demand side measures alone are not enough.

quote:

Three years in, has B.C.'s speculation and vacancy tax made a difference?
On the third anniversary of B.C.�s adoption of a vacant home and speculation tax, the province says the tax has turned empty units into homes.

But experts remain divided on its benefits and note it�s hard to isolate the tax�s exact effect on the supply and market of housing and rental stock.

The B.C. Ministry of Finance, in a 22-page technical briefing to mayors made public Wednesday, points to Canada Mortgage Housing Corp. figures that it says shows the tax �helped� add 18,000 units to the long-term rental market in Greater Vancouver in 2019 and 2020 as investors repurposed their properties toward long-term rental and added newly completed units to the market.

The tax was introduced in 2018 by Premier John Horgan�s NDP government, in part, as a response to escalating home prices in urban areas and low rental vacancy rates and high rental prices.

It applies to all owners of empty homes � although foreign owners pay a higher tax � in the Metro Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo and Kelowna areas.

Tom Davidoff, an associate professor at the Sauder School of Business at the University of B.C., said it�s difficult to isolate the exact effect of the speculation and vacancy tax as there are other factors at work, including the City of Vancouver�s vacancy tax and the foreign-buyers tax, also introduced about the same time.

�I think there was some effect. But you know, it�s hard to disentangle from everything else that goes on in the world,� said Davidoff, director of the UBC Centre for Urban Economics and Real Estate.

�I think, on an annual basis going forward, what it does is it keeps stuff in the rental market,� he said.

It�s also possible that the tax provides incentives for the creation of more purpose-built rental housing, added Davidoff.

Andrey Pavlov, a professor of finance at Simon Fraser University, takes a different view.

He believes the increase in rental units is tied to the premium price for new units in the market, units that haven�t been subject to rent controls. The CMHC report noted the average asking rent for vacant units was 21.4 per cent higher than the overall average rent for occupied units in Metro.

Pavlov said that the speculation and vacancy tax and other NDP housing measures are choking new housing starts, pointing to a recent drop in building permits in the Metro area.

Pavlov says the tax can devalue a new housing asset because it reduces flexibility in its use and can also reduce other government revenues, such as from the property transfer tax.

�The way to increase affordability is to increase supply,� said Pavlov, who specializes in risk management for real estate investments, mortgages and financial derivatives.

The latest CMHC rental market report notes that a combination of �market forces and housing policies from different levels of government� have led property owners to convert units from existing uses to long-term rental, creating new rental supply. The CMHC report notes that in 2020, 3,631 of the 7,137 condo units added to the rental market were conversions of existing units to long-term rental.

The report, however, notes that with lower demand in the short-term due to less tourism because of COVID-19, it�s likely that some of these conversions are the result of investors choosing to rent their units to long-term tenants.

The B.C. NDP government also highlighted the $231 million raised by the speculation and vacancy tax that has gone to support affordable housing.

For the 2020 fiscal year, the speculation and vacancy tax is expected to raise $81 million.

Provincial law requires that money go to housing priorities and a lot of it goes to B.C. Housing, which provides affordable housing in the province.

In providing statistics on the speculation and vacancy tax, the B.C. government stated that more than 99 per cent of British Columbians are exempt from paying the tax for the third year in a row. The province added that foreign owners and satellite families are paying the majority of the tax.

Davidoff here is correct. Pavlov definitely is not.

The biggest change coming from all these taxes is that the market for condos has severely diminished to almost nothing. Overnight a bunch of developers that already had rezonings good to go for condo towers went back to the CoV to ask them to re-rezone them for apartments. At this point everyone is making purpose built rental. Goes to show that although it was small, the pied-a-terre market that the speculation tax crushed may have been significant enough to influence what developers built.

Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Nov 19, 2021

# ? Nov 19, 2021 02:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 18:39

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

I used to be much much more demand side. Clearly there's probably enough housing, the demand is entirely for money laundering and speculation. But over the last ~5 years I've realized that yes, demand side is not something you should ignore, you really need to look at both and there's no harm being aggressive with both. Cities around the world that added a ton of rental stock over the last years have seen rents not go up remotely as much as cities that have not. There's basically no downside to adding more supply, the only problem is that our hosed up nimby zoning systems push development onto existing affordable rental supply rather than single family housing. When SFH is developed no one loses as the owners cash out by their own choice and can use their windfall to relocate. When affordable rentals are redeveloped the renters are entirely hosed.

I say upzone the gently caress out of everything, abandon the concept of single family zoning, protect existing affordable rentals, and go hog wild. Just keep everything walking, cycling, and transit based in that order.

Also yeah, massive investment into affordable housing would be nice too. But going hog wild with transit-oriented-upzoning doesn't preclude that at all. It's never been one or the other. Just attack the problem from every possible angle using every resource you have at hand.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 02:57

Mantle: May 15, 2004

One demand side fix that hasn't been tried yet is raising property tax. Make it toxic to own, and raise funds for public works like rail transit, parks, public events, public art. This city would be awesome to live in, but instead we have a bunch of rich boomers. oh welp

# ? Nov 19, 2021 02:58

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Mantle posted:

One demand side fix that hasn't been tried yet is raising property tax. Make it toxic to own, and raise funds for public works like rail transit, parks, public events, public art. This city would be awesome to live in, but instead we have a bunch of rich boomers. oh welp

I really wish cities had a lot more taxation power. That's basically the only reason we got Red Vienna, they were able to tax what and how they wanted. Property tax is good, but I'd love to see some city level wealth taxes. Make it a very unattractive place to park wealth.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 03:29

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

Mantle posted:

One demand side fix that hasn't been tried yet is raising property tax. Make it toxic to own, and raise funds for public works like rail transit, parks, public events, public art. This city would be awesome to live in, but instead we have a bunch of rich boomers. oh welp

Renters also pay property tax, ultimately, so wouldn�t massive increases in property tax also decrease rent affordability?

# ? Nov 19, 2021 03:40

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Mantle posted:

One demand side fix that hasn't been tried yet is raising property tax. Make it toxic to own, and raise funds for public works like rail transit, parks, public events, public art. This city would be awesome to live in, but instead we have a bunch of rich boomers. oh welp

It has been tried a tiny bit... Along with the Speculation Tax, the BC NDP also raised the "School Tax" (a portion of the property tax) on homes worth over $3M.

But yes the City of Vancouver could def raise property taxes and that would have a big impact but it also seems like a sure fire way to get booted from office. I'd like very much like to see this though.

A lot of peeps on the yimby left have suggested that Vancouver property taxes are much too low versus other cities, but it's not clear to me that this is actually true. Very easy to lie with statistics in this area.

There's other good ideas like adding an extra land value tax on sale and such, which I believe Vancouver city staff is looking into.

Subjunctive posted:

Renters also pay property tax, ultimately, so wouldn�t massive increases in property tax also decrease rent affordability?

I think the rent is based on the market. If property taxes are high and the rental property is not breaking even, welp too bad? The landlord can certainly try to raise rents, but if market rent is lower then everyone is simply going to move. That is if they can move. This is why it's so crucial to get to a reasonable vacancy to have a healthy rental market. At the moment in Vancouver with sub 3% vacancy, landlords just raise the rent every year and what can tenants do? lol nothing.

Baronjutter posted:

I used to be much much more demand side. Clearly there's probably enough housing, the demand is entirely for money laundering and speculation. But over the last ~5 years I've realized that yes, demand side is not something you should ignore, you really need to look at both and there's no harm being aggressive with both. Cities around the world that added a ton of rental stock over the last years have seen rents not go up remotely as much as cities that have not. There's basically no downside to adding more supply, the only problem is that our hosed up nimby zoning systems push development onto existing affordable rental supply rather than single family housing. When SFH is developed no one loses as the owners cash out by their own choice and can use their windfall to relocate. When affordable rentals are redeveloped the renters are entirely hosed.

I say upzone the gently caress out of everything, abandon the concept of single family zoning, protect existing affordable rentals, and go hog wild. Just keep everything walking, cycling, and transit based in that order.

Also yeah, massive investment into affordable housing would be nice too. But going hog wild with transit-oriented-upzoning doesn't preclude that at all. It's never been one or the other. Just attack the problem from every possible angle using every resource you have at hand.

Re: the bolded section:

Years ago I used to be a bit concerned about redevelopment of old east van SFHs that were affordably shared by a bunch of young people, as this would be a replacement of cheap working class, working artist housing with brand new rentals for yuppies. However as the crisis has become more and more dire it's sadly apparent that those renting SFHs are inevitably hosed in all cases, and we might as well rezone for apartments. What we've seen is those cheap rental SFHs inevitably get bought out by rich yuppies or retirees that sold their Dunbar place, and so a house that affordably housed several young people now occupied by fewer, richer persons. Better to rezone the whole area for rental apartments and at least get more rental vacancy.

So yeah I feel I'm in the same place as you. Create very strict rental replacement policies, policies to give renters a bunch of cash if they're evicted for redevelopment, and go hog wild on rental development.

Ideally maybe there's some way we can bias redevelopment toward the rich areas of the city that are predominantly owner occupied SFHs? I dunno how we do that but that'd be the best case scenario.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 04:45

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

Femtosecond posted:

Pavlov says the tax can devalue a new housing asset because it reduces flexibility in its use

This is what we're trying to accomplish right? Devalue housing. This sounds like an accomplishment to me, not a problem. I'm assuming 'flexibility' here refers to things like AirBnb rental, unoccupied vacation home, and speculative asset holding. It's a home, people should live in it.

Femtosecond posted:

A lot of peeps on the yimby left have suggested that Vancouver property taxes are much too low versus other cities, but it's not clear to me that this is actually true. Very easy to lie with statistics in this area.

I don't think there's any lie with statistics here exactly. I think they've gone up a bit recently but bubbly cities in BC (Vancouver, Kelowna, Victoria) and Toronto have extremely low tax rates as a percentage compared to say Ottawa, Winnipeg, Frederiction, etc. But looking at it from a dollar amount raised per square foot it certainly gets a lot closer. It's definitely annoying to know that I pay more property tax on a 500k property than someone in Vancouver with a 1.5million property though.

They're trying to avoid the look of huge property taxes on someone who has owned a home since 1990, which I understand, but I suspect they've held back a little too much on property tax increases. Anyway, I think you're right that a more equitable way to increase revenue would be if the city had some other tool besides taxing property to extract revenue from the wealthy.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 14:52

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

Ontario condo developer suddenly cancels years-long sales deal � unless buyers pay $100K more

:capitalism:

# ? Nov 19, 2021 17:26

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Fidelitious posted:

This is what we're trying to accomplish right? Devalue housing. This sounds like an accomplishment to me, not a problem. I'm assuming 'flexibility' here refers to things like AirBnb rental, unoccupied vacation home, and speculative asset holding. It's a home, people should live in it.

Yeah we've eliminated the "flexible" uses that had harmful secondary effects. Seems good to me.

I was disagreeing with his Pavlov's first line tho:

quote:

He believes the increase in rental units is tied to the premium price for new units in the market, units that haven�t been subject to rent controls. The CMHC report noted the average asking rent for vacant units was 21.4 per cent higher than the overall average rent for occupied units in Metro.

Brand new market rental has always rented at a premium (because it's new!) versus old units with rent control. Literally nothing changed here. Demand for new rental has always been high. What has changed is that we've eliminated demand for foreign owned pied a terres, and now the equation for developers has rebalanced such that condo demand is less and that product is less profitable.

Fidelitious posted:

I don't think there's any lie with statistics here exactly. I think they've gone up a bit recently but bubbly cities in BC (Vancouver, Kelowna, Victoria) and Toronto have extremely low tax rates as a percentage compared to say Ottawa, Winnipeg, Frederiction, etc. But looking at it from a dollar amount raised per square foot it certainly gets a lot closer. It's definitely annoying to know that I pay more property tax on a 500k property than someone in Vancouver with a 1.5million property though.

They're trying to avoid the look of huge property taxes on someone who has owned a home since 1990, which I understand, but I suspect they've held back a little too much on property tax increases. Anyway, I think you're right that a more equitable way to increase revenue would be if the city had some other tool besides taxing property to extract revenue from the wealthy.

Yeah the right way to look at it is to try to figure out taxes per square foot or taxes per capita or some other way of normalizing the data so that cities can be compared. The "lying with numbers" approach that I've seen from people that should really know better is to compare mill rate to mill rate. This is completely disingenuous imo. Even with the first approach there's probably issues to be sorted out in comparing different jurisdictions (eg. how is transit paid for in Ottawa vs Vancouver?). Tbh I'd love love to see someone do the tough work and try to to arrive at a clear and good comparison.

There was a New Westminster councillor that made a blog post trying to compare property taxes per capita within Metro Vancouver, so at least in this case they'd all have a similar tax regime being in the same province, and he found that City of Vancouver was pretty much middle of the pack.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:43

jettisonedstuff: Apr 9, 2006

We could tax land based on opportunity cost rather than just the assessed value of whatever building happens to be on it. A SFH in an urban area is expensive but if you can knock it and the three neighboring houses down and build a 10 storey building with dozens lf living spaces in it then the land is actually worth way more.

Instead the rich owners of bigger houses in big cities just lobby their city councilor to prevent any rezoning, so the real value of that land can't ever be realized.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 21:41

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

jettisonedstuff posted:

We could tax land based on opportunity cost rather than just the assessed value of whatever building happens to be on it. A SFH in an urban area is expensive but if you can knock it and the three neighboring houses down and build a 10 storey building with dozens lf living spaces in it then the land is actually worth way more.

Instead the rich owners of bigger houses in big cities just lobby their city councilor to prevent any rezoning, so the real value of that land can't ever be realized.

That's definitely already a thing though, although I'm not sure if it applies to residential. Commercial buildings in Vancouver are taxed based on the development potential of the zoning, not the building. I recall that we had an office above an art gallery in a 3-storey building in downtown Vancouver. The annual property tax was something crazy like $60,000.

You're still stuck on the rezoning though.

# ? Nov 20, 2021 15:32

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

Hey, Femtosecond.

Check this out.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local...using-proposals posted:

B.C. minister hints at withholding funding to municipalities who thwart affordable housing proposals

B.C. Housing Minister David Eby is threatening to bring a financial hammer down on municipalities that do not cooperate in addressing the province�s housing affordability crisis.

Eby told a conference on affordable housing on Monday that his government �could withhold funding for programs if a municipality refuses to work on the supply challenge.�

He suggested he might use that stick with municipalities that refuse to acknowledge there is a housing supply problem that needs to be addressed.

Housing advocates and developers have said drawn-out municipal rezoning processes add more costs to developments, which makes them less affordable.

Municipalities have been told by the province they must submit a housing needs report by April 2021, outlining how much supply is needed now and in the future, based on expected growth. Eby suggested some communities have refused to acknowledge a crisis in housing supply.

�It�s fine to say that you are not interested in bringing more people into your community, but when you have thousands of people arriving in your community, through federal immigration policies and in-migration from other provinces, you need to match your official community plan with growth and with zoning,� said Eby.

The province set aside $5 million to assist municipalities to create their housing needs reports, but the minister did not confirm whether that was the funding that could be held back if municipalities thwart measures to create affordable or supportive housing.

Eby said a report commissioned by the provincial and federal governments called �Opening Doors� suggested that holding back funding could be an option if the cooperative approach does not work.

�It was outlined to us as a potential option, but it is not something that we are actively doing,� he said.

Eby said he was �frustrated� that a housing project in Surrey � a six-storey, 91-unit building to allow people with disabilities to live independently � failed after complaints by neighbours at a public hearing.

�Supporting adults with disabilities to have independent housing and having an independent life, you would think this would be a no-brainer,� he said. �It�s an example of where we�ve got the money, we�ve got the developer, we�ve got the non-profit to build it, but the municipality has acted as a gatekeeper in preventing it from being built.�

The Union of B.C. Municipalities did not respond to a question about Eby�s threat, but president Laurey-Anne Roodenburg, said in a written statement that about 90 per cent of municipalities are working with the province already on housing affordability.

�Local governments have demonstrated a high level of engagement with this provincial initiative,� she wrote, �with well over 90 per cent having reports completed or underway. Housing affordability and attainability is a challenge for communities throughout B.C., and local governments have welcomed provincial support for improved data on local needs.�

In an effort to speed up municipal approval processes, and avoid the �not-in-my-backyard� backlash faced by municipalities when considering higher density projects, the province introduced legislation last month that would allow housing projects to be approved without going to a public hearing, if it matches the official community plan. However, a municipality can order a public hearing if it believes it is in the public interest.

Eby has also used provincial powers to override municipal objections to some of his government�s supportive housing projects.

On Friday, the province announced its decision to move residents of a temporary housing unit on Royal Crescent by building a permanent, 52-unit housing facility without the approval of Maple Ridge council. The province said it was accelerating the project straight to construction under the legal authority it says gives the province the right to do so.

In March, the B.C. government used its legal authority to override the wishes of Penticton city council in keeping a homeless shelter open. The City of Penticton is challenging the province�s powers to do so in a suit in B.C. Supreme Court.

B.C.�s 10-year housing plan promises $7 billion dollars to build 114,000 units that include supportive housing for those experiencing homelessness or addiction, social housing initiatives directed at Indigenous populations, people with disabilities, women escaping domestic violence, and housing based on income levels, under-market priced units and what are called �off-market units� which includes housing run by co-ops and non-profit housing societies.

...

The proposed upcoming changes to the Local Government Act are pretty interesting. Here's the gist:

(1) Public hearings will no longer be required for rezonings consistent with an Official Community Plan (OCP). The LGA already allows a local government to waive the public hearing requirement in these same set of circumstances, but the new legislation no longer makes a standard obligatory requirement (if that makes sense).

(2) Certain variance powers (like reducing parking requirements, setback relaxations, etc) can FINALLY be delegated to staff rather than always having to go through Council.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Nov 20, 2021

# ? Nov 20, 2021 16:27

jettisonedstuff: Apr 9, 2006

The federal government should be doing that too, but it's going to result in a pretty extreme reactionary turn by homeowners. Most homeowners would be on board with abolishing healthcare and instituting the draft to avoid having their neighborhoods even gently densified.

# ? Nov 20, 2021 17:03

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

jettisonedstuff posted:

The federal government should be doing that too, but it's going to result in a pretty extreme reactionary turn by homeowners. Most homeowners would be on board with abolishing healthcare and instituting the draft to avoid having their neighborhoods even gently densified.

Makes you wonder why the Opening Doors Report recommendation to (1) phase out the Home Owners' Grant, and (2) review the principal residence capital gains tax exemption, is no longer being discussed. :thunk:

# ? Nov 20, 2021 17:58

linoleum floors: Mar 25, 2012; Please. Let me tell you all about how you're all idiots. I am of superior intellect here. Go suck some dicks. You have all fucking stupid opinions. This is my fucking opinion.

This is what we get for doing away with the minister for middle class prosperity. Thanks turdeau

# ? Nov 20, 2021 20:14

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Hubbert posted:

Hey, Femtosecond.

Check this out.

...

The proposed upcoming changes to the Local Government Act are pretty interesting. Here's the gist:

(1) Public hearings will no longer be required for rezonings consistent with an Official Community Plan (OCP). The LGA already allows a local government to waive the public hearing requirement in these same set of circumstances, but the new legislation no longer makes a standard obligatory requirement (if that makes sense).

(2) Certain variance powers (like reducing parking requirements, setback relaxations, etc) can FINALLY be delegated to staff rather than always having to go through Council.

I saw this but forgot to post it. Glad you did.

With the proposed changes it still seems pretty weak to me or rather it's oriented toward giving political cover to councils that want to build.

quote:

...the province introduced legislation last month that would allow housing projects to be approved without going to a public hearing, if it matches the official community plan. However, a municipality can order a public hearing if it believes it is in the public interest.

An anti-housing council could presumably continuously say that every and any rezoning requires a public hearing because it's "in the public interest."

That being said Eby is clearly upset with the do nothing councils that are opposed to housing for the poor.

quote:

He suggested he might use that stick with municipalities that refuse to acknowledge there is a housing supply problem that needs to be addressed.

Housing advocates and developers have said drawn-out municipal rezoning processes add more costs to developments, which makes them less affordable.
....

Eby said he was �frustrated� that a housing project in Surrey � a six-storey, 91-unit building to allow people with disabilities to live independently � failed after complaints by neighbours at a public hearing.

�Supporting adults with disabilities to have independent housing and having an independent life, you would think this would be a no-brainer,� he said. �It�s an example of where we�ve got the money, we�ve got the developer, we�ve got the non-profit to build it, but the municipality has acted as a gatekeeper in preventing it from being built.�

The big question for me is whether "the stick" will only be used for belligerent councils that oppose housing for the poor and disabled, or for anti-housing councils in general, that oppose even market rental housing for the regular working and middle class. I'd def like to see the latter!

Hopefully this is just the start of the changes that Eby will be bringing in.

# ? Nov 20, 2021 21:04

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

Femtosecond posted:

With the proposed changes it still seems pretty weak to me or rather it's oriented toward giving political cover to councils that want to build.

An anti-housing council could presumably continuously say that every and any rezoning requires a public hearing because it's "in the public interest."

I don't think it would give an elected Council any cover whatsoever. A Council must live with the consequences of not having a public hearing for controversial projects. It's a clever way for the Province to start exerting pressure, and it really should continue to do so.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Nov 21, 2021

# ? Nov 21, 2021 02:28

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

Hubbert posted:

Hey, Femtosecond.

Check this out.

...

The proposed upcoming changes to the Local Government Act are pretty interesting. Here's the gist:

(1) Public hearings will no longer be required for rezonings consistent with an Official Community Plan (OCP). The LGA already allows a local government to waive the public hearing requirement in these same set of circumstances, but the new legislation no longer makes a standard obligatory requirement (if that makes sense).

(2) Certain variance powers (like reducing parking requirements, setback relaxations, etc) can FINALLY be delegated to staff rather than always having to go through Council.

Just curious why the article says they needed reports submitted by April 2021? Is it an old article or a typo or am I missing something?

# ? Nov 21, 2021 02:49

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

Purgatory Glory posted:

Just curious why the article says they needed reports submitted by April 2021? Is it an old article or a typo or am I missing something?

Looks like a typo.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/local-governments-and-housing/policy-and-planning-tools-for-housing/housing-needs-reports posted:

Municipalities and regional districts in B.C. are required to complete housing needs reports by April 2022 and every five years thereafter. These reports will help local governments and the B.C. government better understand and respond to housing needs in communities throughout B.C.

It's a legislative requirement.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Nov 21, 2021

# ? Nov 21, 2021 02:56

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

The overall philosophy here I agree with.

BC Government going to the cities saying, "hey so the Feds are letting in 400k+ people and because our economy is one of the best in the country, a huge chunk of that will come our way. Come up with a plan for how you're going to build the expected newcomers and you can't say no."

The key though is what does the Province do when West Van submits a report saying that yeah they'll plan to accept whatever thousand people over the next few years, but then says "yeah nah" to any and all proposed development and it becomes clear there's no path to their target.

# ? Nov 21, 2021 03:01

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

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

Femtosecond posted:

The overall philosophy here I agree with.

BC Government going to the cities saying, "hey so the Feds are letting in 400k+ people and because our economy is one of the best in the country, a huge chunk of that will come our way. Come up with a plan for how you're going to build the expected newcomers and you can't say no."

The key though is what does the Province do when West Van submits a report saying that yeah they'll plan to accept whatever thousand people over the next few years, but then says "yeah nah" to any and all proposed development and it becomes clear there's no path to their target.

Build provincially-funded social housing in the middle of West Van, while telling the municipality to get hosed when they object?

# ? Nov 21, 2021 03:42

Number19: May 14, 2003; HOCKEY OWNS
FUCK YEAH

Build it in the British Properties IMO

# ? Nov 21, 2021 05:34

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

Hubbert posted:

The proposed upcoming changes to the Local Government Act are pretty interesting. Here's the gist:

(1) Public hearings will no longer be required for rezonings consistent with an Official Community Plan (OCP). The LGA already allows a local government to waive the public hearing requirement in these same set of circumstances, but the new legislation no longer makes a standard obligatory requirement (if that makes sense).

(2) Certain variance powers (like reducing parking requirements, setback relaxations, etc) can FINALLY be delegated to staff rather than always having to go through Council.

Yes, stop asking the public about these things. The public is full of idiots, they aren't city planners, and all they're going to do is complain about any change whatsoever.

# ? Nov 21, 2021 15:19

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

If sea levels are rising anyway why can't we just build underwater housing? Plus the jokes about mortgages write themselves.

We can start by filling in marinas and yacht clubs. Next, golf clubs.

# ? Nov 24, 2021 03:39

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

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

eXXon posted:

If sea levels are rising anyway why can't we just build underwater housing? Plus the jokes about mortgages write themselves.

We can start by filling in marinas and yacht clubs. Next, golf clubs.

Sumas ~~Prairie~~ Lake

# ? Nov 24, 2021 03:47

Alctel: Jan 16, 2004; I love snails

eXXon posted:

If sea levels are rising anyway why can't we just build underwater housing? Plus the jokes about mortgages write themselves.

We can start by filling in marinas and yacht clubs. Next, golf clubs.

Marinas are all being bought up and turned into expensive waterside condos anyway, it's almost impossible to find a spot, which is a shame because it's a great low-cost housing alternative

# ? Nov 24, 2021 07:19

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

Bank of Canada's blurb about household debt and housing:

"So many people taking out mortgages that they won't be able to afford with rate increases? Better delay the increase to get more folks in the pyramid scheme. "

Purgatory Glory fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Nov 24, 2021

# ? Nov 24, 2021 16:53

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Decrease the size of that image my man.

How many mortgage bonds does the BoC have on their books now? I wonder if they're more worried about those assets going to zero, I hardly think they care about the average home owner losing their home since they seem eager to blame people for piling into hard assets when interest rates are effectively 0%.

# ? Nov 24, 2021 20:58

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

Made it a thumbnail, not sure if that fixed it. On a phone so it just screen caps.

# ? Nov 24, 2021 22:54

COPE 27: Sep 11, 2006

quote:

Only about 5 per cent, or one in every 20 properties in Ontario are currently inspected at any point before or after the sale, according to Len Inkster, executive secretary of the Ontario Association of Certified Home Inspectors.

Lol

# ? Nov 25, 2021 20:21

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

I mean, unless you lie on the disclosure, too loving bad. Curious how many people dumped their problem property's during the frenzy.

# ? Nov 25, 2021 22:19

Alctel: Jan 16, 2004; I love snails

evilpicard posted:

Lol

lmao jesus christ

# ? Nov 25, 2021 22:35

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Purgatory Glory posted:

I mean, unless you lie on the disclosure, too loving bad. Curious how many people dumped their problem property's during the frenzy.

Tons. Just another reason not to buy during one, it's easily the best time to get rid of your derelict shack.

# ? Nov 25, 2021 22:48

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

evilpicard posted:

Lol

We bought without seeing in-person during the pandemic (due to circumstances) so I'm not going to say we're geniuses but we did at least get a full inspection and full conditions on the purchase.

I imagine the lawyer they quoted just spends her days charging people $200 to laugh at them on the phone because they want sue on their no-inspection no-condition home purchase.

# ? Nov 26, 2021 14:29

Guigui: Jan 19, 2010; Winner of January '10 Lux Aeterna "Best 2010 Poster" Award

Alctel posted:

lmao jesus christ

Ooooh, and its in Winchester, Ontario. I wonder if they know that whenever there is a good North wind, the entire town - which lies south of both the Parmalat and city sewage lagoons - smells like a mix of pungeant soggy fecal material.

# ? Nov 26, 2021 14:40

Sage Grimm: Feb 18, 2013; Let's go explorin' little dude!

If you're anywhere near Toronto (the ~~center~~ sucking black hole of the universe) the housing markets essentially disbars any chance for an offer that requires an inspection (or conditions). They'll just toss it aside in favour of the 4-5 other offers that don't have either.

# ? Nov 26, 2021 15:51

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

I'm guessing the whole point of cool off periods is to allow an inspection during the cool off. "That property's had 3 cool offs".

# ? Nov 26, 2021 16:40

COPE 27: Sep 11, 2006

If I had to spend millions of dollars without knowing whether it would kill and/or bankrupt me I simply would not buy a house.

# ? Nov 26, 2021 16:46

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

Sage Grimm posted:

If you're anywhere near Toronto (the ~~center~~ sucking black hole of the universe) the housing markets essentially disbars any chance for an offer that requires an inspection (or conditions). They'll just toss it aside in favour of the 4-5 other offers that don't have either.

Yeah, the best you can hope for is that the seller had an inspection done by Carson Dunlop, since they have a reputation to care about.

# ? Nov 26, 2021 16:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 18:39

sleep with the vicious: Apr 2, 2010

evilpicard posted:

If I had to spend millions of dollars without knowing whether it would kill and/or bankrupt me I simply would not buy a house.

It won't bankrupt you because in a year it will be worth 20% more because you are such a savvy investor

# ? Nov 26, 2021 17:06

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

«‹›1518 »