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.

MeinPanzer: Dec 20, 2004; anyone who reads Cinema Discusso for anything more than slackjawed trolling will see the shittiness in my posts

Baronjutter posted:

No supply problem in Victoria at all.

God bring back the 60's. Let's build 6000 units.

Holy poo poo. I mean, I always thought that every rental apartment building in Victoria looked like it was built in the 60s-70s, but that actually confirms it. What the hell happened in the 80s?

Also, just got back to town and took a gander at my parents� copy of the Times Colonist editorial page this morning. Not a single screed against cyclists and bike lanes! Victoria, you�ve lost your edge.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 14:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 17:17

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

MeinPanzer posted:

What the hell happened in the 80s?

It's a trend that you'll see across Canada.

Now that most of this purpose-built rental is reaching the end of its lifespan, lol lmao

quote:

Housing Policy for Tomorrow's Cities - Hulchanski

Fifty years later, in 1971, the federal government created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs to coordinate federal activities in housing, public works and transportation as they affected cities and to provide policy advice to the government on urban issues. Provincial governments, which considered urban affairs the same as municipal affairs, and therefore a provincial responsibility, objected to the ministry. Shortly before the 1979 election, it was dismantled to appease them. That ended the federal government�s direct intervention in urban matters.

The federal role in housing since the Second World War has been equally checkered. From the 1940s to 1963, the government had a minuscule social housing program that produced about 850 units a year throughout the country. Critics have suggested that the amount was intended more to forestall criticism of the government�s inaction on housing than to achieve real progress.

However, the 1964 amendments to the National Housing Act (NHA) launched an effective public housing program that created about 200,000 units over about 10 years. In 1973, further amendments to the NHA introduced an assisted home ownership program, a neighbourhood improvement program, a housing rehabilitation program, a native housing program, and a non-profit and co-op housing program.

These programs lasted until the mid-1980s, when the Mulroney Conservatives came to power. The first Conservative budget made immediate cuts to housing programs, and subsequent budgets gradually allowed the government to retreat from housing entirely. By 1993, all federal support for housing was withdrawn. The supply of social housing fell from an annual level of 25,000 new units in 1983 to zero in the 1993 budget. Two years later, the elimination of the Canada Assistance Plan led the provinces to make drastic cuts in social assistance payments that had a devastating effect on the lives of the poor and destitute. Whereas before the 1980s very few people went unhoused, and no one was born homeless, today many thousands of Canadians have no housing and are excluded from community networks and the mainstream patterns of day-to-day life.

quote:

Housing and Housing Policy - Ann McAfee

Before 1970, Canadian housing programs were almost exclusively the preserve of the federal government. The first national housing legislation, the Dominion Housing Act of 1935, provided $20 million in loans and helped finance 4900 units over 3 years. The Federal Home Improvement Plan (1937) provided subsidized interest rates on rehabilitation loans to 66 900 homes. In 1938 the first National Housing Act (NHA) was passed. These acts served the dual purposes of providing housing and creating employment opportunities.

The federal government continued to be active in the housing market during the Second World War. A Crown corporation, Wartime Housing Corporation, built 45 930 units at a cost of $253 million over 8 years and assisted in the repair and modernization of existing houses. New programs stimulated the private housing market by providing mortgage money and favourable interest rates to encourage homeownership and the construction of limited-dividend rental housing. In 1946 the assets of Wartime Housing Corporation were transferred to Central (later Canada) Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

A significant milestone in Canadian housing legislation occurred in 1954 when the federal government agreed to insure mortgage loans made by private investors against borrower default. The Bank Act was also amended to allow Canada's chartered banks to lend money for mortgages. These initiatives enabled the federal government to reduce its direct involvement in lending and to become an insurer of mortgages and a lender of last resort.

The provision of housing for lower income Canadians has been another continuing concern of governments. Social, public, community and non-market housing are terms used interchangeably to describe housing for people whose needs for adequate and affordable shelter cannot be met through market housing. Non-market units are funded and managed by governments and non-profit and co-operative societies to provide affordable housing. The first Canadian social housing legislation was introduced in 1938 when the NHA made provision for construction of low-rent housing. In 1949 the NHA was broadened to include federal-provincial programs (sometimes with city participation) to fund publicly owned and provincially managed housing for low-income families, seniors and the disabled. Prior to 1970, government programs assisted one-third of all housing starts. Most of this assistance was directed to market housing. Less than 5% of all starts were specifically designed to house lower income Canadians.

From 1969 to 1974 public housing programs underwent extensive evaluation. A $200 million program in 1970 stimulated innovative solutions for housing low-income Canadians. In 1974 the NHA was amended: existing public housing was to continue to provide accommodation for low-income households; rural and First Nations programs were added; and new social housing was to be built by municipalities, non-profit organizations and co-operatives. The legislation encouraged consumers to be more involved in the design and management of housing and encouraged a mix of modest and lower income households. The federal government was the main source of funding for social housing, with some assistance from provinces and cities.

During the 1970s the federal government continued to assist the private housing market by insuring mortgages and providing direct loans in smaller communities that were otherwise not well served by private lenders. Incentives introduced to stimulate home ownership were tax-exempt registered homeownership savings plans, an assisted homeownership program and changes to the Tax Act (1971) that excluded principal residences from capital gains tax. The federal government assisted the construction of private rental housing through a combination of grants, preferential loans and taxation concessions (multiple-unit residential-building deductions, the assisted rental program and a rental supply plan). Government programs assisted 40% of all housing completions.

Throughout the 1970s provincial and city governments assumed a more active role in housing. Prior to 1970 Ontario had the most active provincial housing agency. By the mid-1970s all 10 provinces had created new or stronger housing departments and assumed more responsibility for policy development and for setting priorities for spending housing funds. Most provinces offered home-ownership grants and funded non-market housing. Some provinces assisted renters by providing tax credits, shelter allowances and rent control. Amendments to the NHA in 1978 and negotiations surrounding the Constitution Act, 1982, supported provincial housing activities, and, in turn, senior governments encouraged cities to create municipal non-profit corporations to build and manage social housing.

From 1947 to 1986 there were 253 500 public housing units built across Canada. Ontario had the largest share (43%), followed by Qu�bec (22%), British Columbia (8%), Manitoba (7%) and Alberta (5%). The location of public housing reflects the extent to which provincial governments participated in cost-shared programs and in areas with traditionally low vacancy rates. Public housing, managed by government, primarily houses seniors, families and others with housing and support needs.

Between 1974 and 1986 governments shifted to funding non-profit groups such as churches, co-operatives and municipalities in order to provide affordable housing. More than 220 000 units of non-profit and cooperative housing were provided to house families (50%), seniors (40%) and others (10%). (See also Indigenous People: Government Programs).

In the early 1980s the Canadian Home Stimulation Program provided grants to home buyers; the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan assisted those who were experiencing difficulty renewing their mortgages at higher interest rates; and the Graduated Payment Mortgage Plan helped homeowners offset the rising costs of home ownership by lowering initial monthly mortgage payments. In 2008 new initiatives allowed investors in small rental projects to purchase properties with no money down.

Social housing programs underwent an extensive review from 1979 to 1984. Coinciding with fiscal restraint both to eliminate the operating deficit and reduce the national debt, governments examined the ongoing cost of housing subsidies. Housing funds were reduced and directly targeted to low-income people. More emphasis was placed upon renovation of existing housing.

Most market rental-assistance programs ended by the mid-1980s, but CMHC continued to assist more than 12 800 households annually to improve housing quality through a variety of rehabilitation programs for homeowners, rental units, rental conversions and rooming houses in both urban and rural areas.

By 1993 the federal government withdrew from funding new social housing. In 1996 the federal government announced that the management and ongoing subsidies of existing social housing would be transferred to the provinces. Provincial contributions to housing varied across the country. For the most part, funding was uncertain and provided minimal support for those least able to afford housing in higher priced markets. Since 1995, British Columbia and Qu�bec have been the only provinces funding new social housing. British Columbia provides limited funds for building independent living for frail elderly and other vulnerable populations and Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters to ease the cost of market rental housing.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 16:16

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

BC's home values are now worth 24% of Canada's entire total

COME ON B.C., YOU CAN DO IT
PAVE THE WAY, PUT YOUR BACK INTO IT
TELL US WHY, SHOW US HOW
LOOK AT WHERE YOU CAME FROM
LOOK AT YOU NOW

# ? Dec 2, 2021 16:35

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Hubbert posted:

Now that most of this purpose-built rental is reaching the end of its lifespan, lol lmao

Before David Miller left as Toronto mayor, he spearheaded a major report on apartment tower renewal, given the massive amount of 1950s-70s, mainly suburban rental units in slowly decaying buildings and with inadequate supporting infrastructure. Then we elected Rob Ford to replace him.

lol lmao indeed.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 16:49

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; Can't post for 4 hours!

Crow Buddy posted:

Hope those companies give that a second look, or they will certainly will be needing some (new) tech people since me and everyone else is currently scrambling for whatever we can get.

That's overstating it a bit. I've heard rumors about it being hard to hire, but people aren't rushing for the exits in advance of being called back into the office regularly.

Crow Buddy posted:

Currently the employees have all the power, and they could not be more aware of that.

It's hard to do much when your union is completely in agreement with management that there should be as few exceptions as possible to the "everyone comes in n days a week" policy.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 16:53

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

EngineerJoe posted:

My neighbours house in KW sold 2 years ago for 700k and just last month it sold again with an asking price of $1m. I don't know what it sold for though.

People making more money from house flipping than I am for doing actual productive work, love this loving society

# ? Dec 2, 2021 17:46

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

We have hiring bounties of $5000 for our senior roles.

I think smaller, privately held non-faang tech companies that can't dangle heaps of RSUs are going to need to consider switching to 4 day work weeks to compete with the big public companies. I assume that all small private tech companies are going to have incredibly liberal WFH policies because it's one of the only levers they have to compete against the big companies.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 17:53

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Baronjutter posted:

No supply problem in Victoria at all.

God bring back the 60's. Let's build 6000 units.

People usually point at the Chretien 1990s austerity as the start of the pullback from apartment development, but whoa man look at that 1980s number. Started earlier in Victoria at least.

There is potentially demographic changes to explain for this (ie. wave of young boomers needing single bedroom apts was over?) but the 70s was also around the time where you had the new wave of anti-growth left getting into power that were searching around for new ways to build cities that didn't involve razing neighbourhoods and building towers. Maybe a council like that got into power in Victoria and made a real mark?

Edit: Sees Hubbert's post Ahhh so the austerity did start before Chretien...

# ? Dec 2, 2021 17:58

Slotducks: Oct 16, 2008; Nobody puts Phil in a corner.

https://www.thespec.com/business/real-estate/2021/12/02/hamilton-house-prices.html

I did some math on this - with a 20% down payment (180k - which alone is lmao) the monthly mortgage will be $3,350/month at 2.84%

To service that debt alone (with the 34% ratio rule) you need a rough household income of $80/hour (166k annual) to service that debt alone. The Median household income in Ontario in 2019 was 90k.

People aged 34 or lower without either a house or kids at this point are going to start to thinking about which of the two they want to have in life because at this point it's getting to be impossible to make the accounting work for having both at this point.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 18:26

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Femtosecond posted:

People usually point at the Chretien 1990s austerity as the start of the pullback from apartment development, but whoa man look at that 1980s number. Started earlier in Victoria at least.

There is potentially demographic changes to explain for this (ie. wave of young boomers needing single bedroom apts was over?) but the 70s was also around the time where you had the new wave of anti-growth left getting into power that were searching around for new ways to build cities that didn't involve razing neighbourhoods and building towers. Maybe a council like that got into power in Victoria and made a real mark?

Edit: Sees Hubbert's post Ahhh so the austerity did start before Chretien...

Apparently it was all down to taxes and subsidies. 60-80's there were a lot of policies that made apartment development attractive and it was a real easy business to get into. You're a fairly successful dentist, your friend is a lawyer, your other friend is in senior management for the Ministry of Transport. You pool your money together and bam, you build a typical little 4 story woodframe condo. There's practically off the shelf plans and contractors are just cranking them out. You don't need to worry about zoning because most of the land was already zoned for it, you don't need to deal with 3 years of public consultation and studies as there's only basic building permit process, and the generally very long return on investment for rental construction is much more appealing because there's tax breaks for it and even subsidies in some cases. So you get this absolute boom of affordable residential construction that resulted in rock bottom rents for decades. Then in the late 70's the tax system was changed that suddenly made apartment construction incredibly unattractive, plus cities really started to clamp down on zoning by down-zoning previously multi-family land into R1. That's where rental construction dropped off a cliff, and instead everyone switched over to these new "condo" things. They were not pumping out nearly as many units as the market for condos was smaller and they were seen as more risky short-term investments rather than long-term rental income.

We then went like 30 years building almost no rental stock, with a good 80% of our stock being built in a single era. This of course means the vast majority of our housing stock is decaying and reaching the end of its life at the same time. A big reason of the sudden uptick in renovictions isn't just greedy landlords, but the buildings legitimately needing major upgrades or simply being replaced. Of course the cheapest apartments are the ones in the worst conditions, so the affordable ratty buildings are the first to go.

And since every scrap of land that didn't already have an apartment on it got brutally downzoned, its made existing multi-family zoned land artificially valuable. You could have two identical lots on the same street, one has a little 16 unit 4 story apartment and the other has a single big 1 house and they're both in the same condition. Which one should get demolished and rebuilt? The affordable apartment of course, because it's already zoned and trying to redevelop the house would be years of contentious political battles. The house of course gets demolished too, but replaced with a massive 4 million dollar mansion because upzoning for apartments would be gentrification.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 18:44

Alctel: Jan 16, 2004; I love snails

Someone give me a starter coding job please and thanks, I've been learning for about a year but have 20 years in networking, servers and SQL management and also 17 years posting experience on the SomethingAwful Forums

# ? Dec 2, 2021 18:50

Slotducks: Oct 16, 2008; Nobody puts Phil in a corner.

all the coding jobs are gone - only real economic opportunity in Canada left is Real Estate speculator.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 19:03

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Slotducks posted:

all the coding jobs are gone - only real economic opportunity in Canada left is Real Estate speculator.

What if we made an app for that?

# ? Dec 2, 2021 21:10

Mantle: May 15, 2004

City of Vancouver needs to raise Priory taxes by 5% in order to maintain service levels, i.e. in order to not reduce our standard of living.

I've found the solution to the housing crisis in BC.

Fund the increase solely from property owners over the age of 55. They can use that sweet free* property tax deferral to pay for it, and working class people that have to work to pay for their property tax get a break. No one is displaced from their home including 55ers, and everyone gets to maintain quality of life.

*Basically free

# ? Dec 2, 2021 21:21

Franks Happy Place: Mar 15, 2011; It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dank of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion.

All my cannabis retail clients are now paying around $25/hr as a starting wage for people who don't even have their Selling It Right cert yet. Anecdotally it's because most of the owners I talk to are legit "living wage" minded due to the number of them who are minority/woman/whatever owned ($25 is probably $3-4 above market), but I think that's also now the range for a starting wage in Vancouver at this point.

Baronjutter posted:

Apparently it was all down to taxes and subsidies. 60-80's there were a lot of policies that made apartment development attractive and it was a real easy business to get into. You're a fairly successful dentist, your friend is a lawyer, your other friend is in senior management for the Ministry of Transport. You pool your money together and bam, you build a typical little 4 story woodframe condo. There's practically off the shelf plans and contractors are just cranking them out. You don't need to worry about zoning because most of the land was already zoned for it, you don't need to deal with 3 years of public consultation and studies as there's only basic building permit process, and the generally very long return on investment for rental construction is much more appealing because there's tax breaks for it and even subsidies in some cases. So you get this absolute boom of affordable residential construction that resulted in rock bottom rents for decades. Then in the late 70's the tax system was changed that suddenly made apartment construction incredibly unattractive, plus cities really started to clamp down on zoning by down-zoning previously multi-family land into R1. That's where rental construction dropped off a cliff, and instead everyone switched over to these new "condo" things. They were not pumping out nearly as many units as the market for condos was smaller and they were seen as more risky short-term investments rather than long-term rental income.

We then went like 30 years building almost no rental stock, with a good 80% of our stock being built in a single era. This of course means the vast majority of our housing stock is decaying and reaching the end of its life at the same time. A big reason of the sudden uptick in renovictions isn't just greedy landlords, but the buildings legitimately needing major upgrades or simply being replaced. Of course the cheapest apartments are the ones in the worst conditions, so the affordable ratty buildings are the first to go.

And since every scrap of land that didn't already have an apartment on it got brutally downzoned, its made existing multi-family zoned land artificially valuable. You could have two identical lots on the same street, one has a little 16 unit 4 story apartment and the other has a single big 1 house and they're both in the same condition. Which one should get demolished and rebuilt? The affordable apartment of course, because it's already zoned and trying to redevelop the house would be years of contentious political battles. The house of course gets demolished too, but replaced with a massive 4 million dollar mansion because upzoning for apartments would be gentrification.

This is all spot on. Those "mom and pop" landlords used to be able to sell/refinance their smaller buildings and then not pay capital gains *IF* they reinvested their profits into more rental stock, aka give their prime lot to a better-resourced rental company and move on to something more reasonable elsewhere. It made it possible for smaller properties to get bought out by owners with more resources to afford building at a higher FSR, because the former owners were still able to afford something smaller elsewhere. Instead now you end up with short (3-4 storey) walk up buildings in super dense neighborhoods (Kerrisdale and South Granville are great examples) that the current owners don't really maintain, can't afford to sell, and aren't dense enough for the area.

(Of course this is the purely neoliberal answer. The REAL answer is that ever since the 80s we haven't had a national housing strategy or unified funding pool for housing, it's had an enormous impact on everything from social housing to co-op housing to, as above, market housing. We should just socialize housing outright but LOL).

# ? Dec 2, 2021 23:03

COPE 27: Sep 11, 2006

Lol

The Bank of Canada Only Sees 2 Real Estate Bubbles and Vancouver Isn’t One of Them

Lmao

Lol

# ? Dec 2, 2021 23:55

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

evilpicard posted:

Lol

The Bank of Canada Only Sees 2 Real Estate Bubbles and Vancouver Isn�t One of Them

Lmao

Lol

quote:

The BoC�s indicator only looks for explosive dynamics, meaning it can�t tell us if a market is still a bubble. It only looks at whether or not trade in the quarter showed excessive growth, beyond what fundamentals would support. That doesn�t necessarily mean the market isn�t a bubble. It just means the bubble isn�t getting any bigger, but those issues are easily conflated in some of the BoC�s reports.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 00:54

Mandibular Fiasco: Oct 14, 2012

Further Oak Bay Hoarder House Update�sold for $1.35 M, $250K over asking, no subjects. Unbelievable, this place is so screwed.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 07:43

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

Mantle posted:

City of Vancouver needs to raise Priory taxes by 5% in order to maintain service levels, i.e. in order to not reduce our standard of living.

I've found the solution to the housing crisis in BC.

Fund the increase solely from property owners over the age of 55. They can use that sweet free* property tax deferral to pay for it, and working class people that have to work to pay for their property tax get a break. No one is displaced from their home including 55ers, and everyone gets to maintain quality of life.

*Basically free

For a second there I thought Vancouver was taxing monasteries.

In any case, they need the money now, increasing the amount that's stacked up waiting for olds to die doesn't sound immediately helpful.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 14:43

Slotducks: Oct 16, 2008; Nobody puts Phil in a corner.

evilpicard posted:

Lol

The Bank of Canada Only Sees 2 Real Estate Bubbles and Vancouver Isn’t One of Them

Lmao

Lol

I genuinely don't understand these people

# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:21

large hands: Jan 24, 2006; Can't post for 8 hours!

Mandibular Fiasco posted:

Further Oak Bay Hoarder House Update…sold for $1.35 M, $250K over asking, no subjects. Unbelievable, this place is so screwed.

Any house in Fernwood is 1 million+ right now. I'm not surprised a lot in oak Bay is going for that. Although if it's in the Jubilee area east of Richmond that seems a little high.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 15:32

MeinPanzer: Dec 20, 2004; anyone who reads Cinema Discusso for anything more than slackjawed trolling will see the shittiness in my posts

Truly insane. Over the last year or so the real estate market here has crossed over to another level.

Meanwhile my dad was telling me about the saga of his colleague's son buying a 2br house in Burnaby -- for $2.7 million. He's an only child, as is his wife, and both families basically invested 100% of their savings into buying that property. You know, just casually dropping double the average cost of a Manhattan townhouse on a 2br house in a city whose economy is a fraction the size of New York's.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 18:00

Mandibular Fiasco: Oct 14, 2012

large hands posted:

Any house in Fernwood is 1 million+ right now. I'm not surprised a lot in oak Bay is going for that. Although if it's in the Jubilee area east of Richmond that seems a little high.

Irony is that the community who lives there can�t afford to. The place next to this was equally a dump. It�s a bizarre market right now, with no inventory and too many investors. Interest rates can�t rise soon enough.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 19:14

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

God drat my house in Fairfield has probably gone up 250k in a single year if all these local stats and numbers are right. Absolutely insane and stupid. It's not helping me one bit, I don't want it. loving bulldoze half of fairfield and replace with apartments and townhouses plz. Jack up property taxes and funnel that into real affordable housing since the feds are never going to actually due their jobs. Strict tenant protections against renovictions, close all remaining eviction loopholes, 1 year notice for demolition evictions. Make it so much easier to redevelop single family housing into apartments that developers don't want to touch existing affordable rentals.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 19:19

Mandibular Fiasco: Oct 14, 2012

Baronjutter posted:

God drat my house in Fairfield has probably gone up 250k in a single year if all these local stats and numbers are right. Absolutely insane and stupid. It's not helping me one bit, I don't want it. loving bulldoze half of fairfield and replace with apartments and townhouses plz. Jack up property taxes and funnel that into real affordable housing since the feds are never going to actually due their jobs. Strict tenant protections against renovictions, close all remaining eviction loopholes, 1 year notice for demolition evictions. Make it so much easier to redevelop single family housing into apartments that developers don't want to touch existing affordable rentals.

All good ideas. Too bad we�ll do worse than nothing and further juice an out of control housing market with Liberal policy stupidity.

We are looking in your neighbourhood and there�s just nothing to buy (and our price range is pretty big). It�s shameful how ineffective our leaders have been on this file.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 19:23

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

MeinPanzer posted:

Truly insane. Over the last year or so the real estate market here has crossed over to another level.

Meanwhile my dad was telling me about the saga of his colleague's son buying a 2br house in Burnaby -- for $2.7 million. He's an only child, as is his wife, and both families basically invested 100% of their savings into buying that property. You know, just casually dropping double the average cost of a Manhattan townhouse on a 2br house in a city whose economy is a fraction the size of New York's.

Sometimes I wonder if most people in Canada have this weird fetish where they have to constantly be in a state of scarcity and danger of financial ruin and that this also is a primary factor in them dropping millions of dollars on a home that in all likelihood still needs to be paid for after the fact, when that money could theoretically support them for the rest of their lives in rented accomodation (esp with supplemental income), .

# ? Dec 3, 2021 20:59

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

qhat posted:

Sometimes I wonder if most people in Canada have this weird fetish where they have to constantly be in a state of scarcity and danger of financial ruin and that this also is a primary factor in them dropping millions of dollars on a home that in all likelihood still needs to be paid for after the fact, when that money could theoretically support them for the rest of their lives in rented accomodation (esp with supplemental income), .

Don�t kink shame me, bro.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 22:06

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

qhat posted:

Sometimes I wonder if most people in Canada have this weird fetish where they have to constantly be in a state of scarcity and danger of financial ruin and that this also is a primary factor in them dropping millions of dollars on a home that in all likelihood still needs to be paid for after the fact, when that money could theoretically support them for the rest of their lives in rented accomodation (esp with supplemental income), .

There's a certain stability in owning that you can't get renting in Canada. I mean it's certainly regional, but most everyone I know who rents in Victoria has to move every 4-5 years because of landlord fuckery. They're converting the building to condos. They're demolishing it for a bigger building. Their 4th cousin twice removed wants to stay in the unit and blood trumps tenant rights. They're going to slap some paint on the unit and put in new countertops and double the rent. There's always something, so you have this constant feeling of uncertainty. Add in 0.5% rental vacancy and constantly climbing rents and people are willing to make potentially bad financial decisions in the name of peace of mind.

That was the entire reason we bought, we had moved 3 times in 5 years and were sick of it. Our landlord was old, had health problems, and the lot was worth an incredible amount and was already zoned to allow for so much more. The moment he retired and passed managing the building on to his kids we were 100% getting a demoviction notice, was just a question of when. Most people can't make this choice though and just have to live with that constant uncertainty.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 22:13

Slotducks: Oct 16, 2008; Nobody puts Phil in a corner.

qhat posted:

Sometimes I wonder if most people in Canada have this weird fetish where they have to constantly be in a state of scarcity and danger of financial ruin and that this also is a primary factor in them dropping millions of dollars on a home that in all likelihood still needs to be paid for after the fact, when that money could theoretically support them for the rest of their lives in rented accomodation (esp with supplemental income), .

Yeah you could think about all that bullshit or you could just sign up for the new 2022 Doge Ram TRX for the low low price of $288 weekly for 96 months at 3.49% and not worry about such petty little things.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 22:16

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Baronjutter posted:

There's a certain stability in owning that you can't get renting in Canada. I mean it's certainly regional, but most everyone I know who rents in Victoria has to move every 4-5 years because of landlord fuckery. They're converting the building to condos. They're demolishing it for a bigger building. Their 4th cousin twice removed wants to stay in the unit and blood trumps tenant rights. They're going to slap some paint on the unit and put in new countertops and double the rent. There's always something, so you have this constant feeling of uncertainty. Add in 0.5% rental vacancy and constantly climbing rents and people are willing to make potentially bad financial decisions in the name of peace of mind.

That was the entire reason we bought, we had moved 3 times in 5 years and were sick of it. Our landlord was old, had health problems, and the lot was worth an incredible amount and was already zoned to allow for so much more. The moment he retired and passed managing the building on to his kids we were 100% getting a demoviction notice, was just a question of when. Most people can't make this choice though and just have to live with that constant uncertainty.

None of this explains why a family would drop all of their life savings on a 2.7 million dollar home. That is frankly obscene.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 22:33

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

You know what you could do with 2.7 million dollars or even a fraction of that? You could start a business, you could travel the world a hundred times over, you could live care-free until you die, you could even build a house of your personal preference on an empty lot. 2.7million is an absolutely hilarious amount of money to pay for a property unless it is objectively a mansion.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 22:38

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; Can't post for 4 hours!

qhat posted:

2.7million is an absolutely hilarious amount of money to pay for a property unless it is objectively a mansion.

But qhat, it's in a metro area like no other! Unless you're talking about GDP, in which case it's in a metro area like Columbus, Ohio.

# ? Dec 3, 2021 22:41

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

qhat posted:

You know what you could do with 2.7 million dollars or even a fraction of that? You could start a business, you could travel the world a hundred times over, you could live care-free until you die, you could even build a house of your personal preference on an empty lot. 2.7million is an absolutely hilarious amount of money to pay for a property unless it is objectively a mansion.

Yes, but only 2.7 million dollars can only buy you the one thing you've always been missing out on:

the pride of canadian home ownership

# ? Dec 3, 2021 23:15

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

qhat posted:

You know what you could do with 2.7 million dollars or even a fraction of that? You could start a business, you could travel the world a hundred times over, you could live care-free until you die, you could even build a house of your personal preference on an empty lot. 2.7million is an absolutely hilarious amount of money to pay for a property unless it is objectively a mansion.

You cannot easily get nearly as much leverage to do those other things. Homes are the only asset I can think of where I can rather easily get 5x+ leverage. Sometimes way higher leverage. Gotta bet big to win big.

# ? Dec 4, 2021 00:54

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

MickeyFinn posted:

You cannot easily get nearly as much leverage to do those other things. Homes are the only asset I can think of where I can rather easily get 5x+ leverage. Sometimes way higher leverage. Gotta bet big to win big.

You haven't discovered a way to make more money with less risk. Only a way to make more money with more risk.

# ? Dec 4, 2021 01:15

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

qhat posted:

You haven't discovered a way to make more money with less risk. Only a way to make more money with more risk.

I haven�t discovered anything at all. I�m just saying that the home purchasers very likely didn�t have $2.7 million dollars, so the list of things one might do with that sum of money besides buy an over-priced house is a red herring.

My �bet big to win big� comment was bitterness about the fact that most people don�t seem to get that buying housing is taking a risk. And a leveraged one at that.

# ? Dec 4, 2021 01:22

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

MickeyFinn posted:

I haven�t discovered anything at all. I�m just saying that the home purchasers very likely didn�t have $2.7 million dollars, so the list of things one might do with that sum of money besides buy an over-priced house is a red herring.

My �bet big to win big� comment was bitterness about the fact that most people don�t seem to get that buying housing is taking a risk. And a leveraged one at that.

Fair enough. But to get a mortgage on that home you need 135k minimum for a downpayment, which is a 2.565 million dollar mortgage, which is roughly 12k a month in payments over 25 years. Unless these people are in the top 1% of earnings that is a totally unreasonable amount of money, there's no way a normal family bought that without at least 1-2 million dollars as a downpayment.

# ? Dec 4, 2021 01:37

Mandibular Fiasco: Oct 14, 2012

qhat posted:

Fair enough. But to get a mortgage on that home you need 135k minimum for a downpayment, which is a 2.565 million dollar mortgage, which is roughly 12k a month in payments over 25 years. Unless these people are in the top 1% of earnings that is a totally unreasonable amount of money, there's no way a normal family bought that without at least 1-2 million dollars as a downpayment.

No one is getting a $2.5 M mortgage with 5% down. 25% down minimum, so assuming this is true, they came up with $675K and are carrying $2M+ over 25 years.

# ? Dec 4, 2021 03:58

COPE 27: Sep 11, 2006

Living full time in a luxury hotel compares well with buying a 2.7 million dollar home, financially speaking

# ? Dec 4, 2021 04:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 17:17

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

Mandibular Fiasco posted:

No one is getting a $2.5 M mortgage with 5% down. 25% down minimum, so assuming this is true, they came up with $675K and are carrying $2M+ over 25 years.

That's still $8000+ in mortgage per month. That's crazy.
The amount of income needed to reasonably service these purchases is mind-boggling honestly.

# ? Dec 4, 2021 15:32

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

«‹›1521 »