|
It just feels like everyone caught on to this too late. The feds are finally moving, Toronto just approved a massive new co-op, but it'll be years before anything hits. It takes time to build things and now it's harder for people to live and work to build those things. At least they're building 2,000 rental units on a downtown corner by me. Maybe by 2030 it'll help some people.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
I feel like we haven't even gotten to the inevitable push back let alone the revanchism yet. BC may have announced a slew of changes but nothing has actually happened yet. When things actually start *gasp* noticably changing in people's communities we're going to see a push by new politicians to put the toothpaste back in the tube. And as well as immigration inevitably pulls back, we're going to see a push for "see things have improved so lets stop doing everything."
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
Actually you're right I guess I could "afford" it but my personal criteria for affordability doesn't include spending 45% of after tax income on rent. Anyway my point is more 1) who the hell is paying $4000 to rent a place that doesn't let you have regular size furniture and 2) seems like the housing crisis is framed mostly as homelessness crisis + home ownership out of reach for most people, but it seems like even pretty high income renters are still more hosed than buyers, at least in my area. VV I live in Quebec, taxes and pension are about 55% of my income e: e: e: e: e: no wait your right actually wasn't thinking about my annual bonus in my monthly income lol. I'll go rent that condo now thanks goons. COPE 27 fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Feb 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
Anyone who doesn’t already own a home is getting screwed. It costs too much to buy. It costs too much to rent. There are few options to rent due to low vacancy and especially so if you have a large family (or need more than 1 bedroom for whatever reason). These numbers don’t make sense though, separate to the point? 99th percentile income = 250k 250k in BC = 160k take home 160k / 12 = 13k take home per month 4 / 13 = 30% of take home income on rent Guessing you were being hyperbolic. Either way 4k is a disgusting amount. In theory that can only exist because of low vacancy, no one would pick that given another option.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 01:22
|
|
|
Federally 99th %ile is almost exactly 250K, FWIW, or about 160K after tax in BC. $4K in monthly rent is almost exactly 30% of that. e: oh look there’s another page
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
the best part of the ongoing shitshow that is renting in ontario is every time a tenant facing an n12 asks for help in the various relevant subreddits* they get threatened with their eventual eviction order being uploaded to opendoor.ca love to get blacklisted just for exercising my legal rights while still paying rent and caring for the property in a market with a sub-1.5% vacancy rate  *eg /r/legaladvicecanada, /r/ontariolandlord (despite the name tenants are encouraged to post for help here too), /r/ontario, etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 01:57
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:Ontario, don't worry I know my rights. I'm actually hoping for a quick sale then I'm going to demand a mutual release cash for keys (N11 here) or they can take me to the LTB to evict which will take 6 to 9 months with the current backlog and kill their sale. well i might have got my wish, lol i didn't mean _that_ quick. gently caress. LL agent asking me if 70 days notice will be ok as they have an offer to purchase, but completely forgetting to tell me if they're going to n11, n12, or just expect me to fade away and bother them no more tempted to just ignore her email
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 04:02
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:well i might have got my wish, lol gently caress that sucks. Yeah ignoring the email sounds like a viable option, actually. If they want you out 70 days from now they gotta get your n12 to you in writing before the end of the month. Also it's a requirement that they have a signed offer before they can do that. So it seems likely that the do? Like you can still probably threaten to force them to evict you if they don't n11 you, but I don't think tenants are usually a condition of agreements of sale, so it most likely won't spike the sale. You'll just be fighting with the new owners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 04:39
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:gently caress that sucks. In my experience they are, 'vacant possession' is a standard term, at least in Ontario. If it's not vacant on the completion date they can sink the sale for breach of contract. There's reasonable accommodations where maybe the tenant needed an extra day or 2, but if it's clear they're not leaving then yeah. I suppose this could be different if an N## has been served and it's simply not being followed since that's not really on the seller? Who knows. Either way, not the tenants' problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 15:10
|
|
|
seller's agent confirmed they will be issuing us an N12 and is ignoring any mention of N11. they didn't specify if the buyer is asking for vacant possession or not. if the buyer did not put vacant possession in the purchase offer and we don't leave, the new owners become our landlords. they can file an L2 for a no-fault eviction with the LTB at that point and wait for a hearing or negotiate an N11 with us directly. if we do leave (or are evicted) and the new owners fail to move in, we can take them to the LTB for violating the N12 if the buyer did ask for vacant possession and we fail to leave due to the n12, the deal can fail to close and the seller will be in breach. this is where you hear stories about panicked sellers trying to negotiate an n11 with the tenant at the 11th hour. i am very surprised that our landlord isn't just buying us out; if we agree to an N11 and fail to leave they can have the sheriff evict us in 10 days with no delay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
fwiw i've been making big talk about this but at the end of the day, we just want a place to live and to be left alone. mrs cob doesn't want to have to deal with tribunals and stuff. we'll try to find a new place but the rental market is SUPER tight right now and we're not interested in moving into another investor-owned property where we can be put through this again. this is the SECOND loving TIME we've been N12ed in just under three years now. we're going to look for a purpose built rental where we won't have to worry about this anymore. if we can't find one before they close their purchase, that's their loving problem. we'll find one well before the L2 gets heard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 16:13
|
|
|
Coincidentally we had a little happy hour block party the other day and I found out neighbours in the townhouse across the road have found out that their landlord is going to sell. Everyone glum because yea in this environment everyone is assuming that there's zero chance that the property is bought by an investor that is happy with the status quo and so the eviction of our neighbour pals is inevitable as the new owner moves in. Basically why on earth would anyone buy a $1M+ property and rent it out, even if it's for a relatively high Vancouver rent of $2500+ or whatever? It just makes zero financial sense. Terrible investment. So of course it's going to be an owner occupier that buys. I see this as an example of that sort of "slow gentrification" that happens when there's low vacancy, not enough construction, and not enough to buy or rent. There's not a remarkable amount of good new product being built, so people with money that want to own a place have no option but to buy a relatively crappier old building and evicting whoever it was that was living there. Over time the neighbourhood slowly churns over, losing renters, gaining owner occupiers, and becoming dramatically more wealthy. It's Gentrification but instead of the quick "rip the bandaid off" version of a pile of renters being evicted because an entire old building is redeveloped into shiny condo it's a slow drip drip drip of old apartments gradually being bought up and renovated. Go back to the start of this thread and folks going off about bad cap rate and how the prices are so high that investment makes no sense. Well this is an outcome of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:
I got evicted twice in 2 years. People think the hard part is finding a new place to live, but for me it just feels so hosed up that someone can just arbitrarily force you to lose multiple days of your time and $$$'s to $$$$'s of dollars on a whim. This is why I'm currently renting a place from family that is less than half of my budget and doesn't really meet my needs instead of letting someone that actually needs an affordable place have it and moving somewhere nicer. On the other hand the lovely liberal housing plan is pretty much written to only benefit people in my exact situation so I might just buy a 100 year old house and hope it doesn't collapse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Basically why on earth would anyone buy a $1M+ property and rent it out, even if it's for a relatively high Vancouver rent of $2500+ or whatever? It just makes zero financial sense. Terrible investment. So of course it's going to be an owner occupier that buys. If you look at just the gross rental yield then yes it's a terrible investment. But people assume housing number only goes up and buy because they say not only is there cash flow but there's large expectation of a price increase in the near future..
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 20:31
|
|
|
It's almost as if for the lifespan of this thread, investors have been able to accept the trade-off of low cap rates in exchange for rapid asset inflation / capital appreciation.  quote:“The two greatest stores of wealth internationally today is contemporary art….. and I don’t mean that as a joke, I mean that as a serious asset class,” said Fink. “And two, the other store of wealth today is apartments in Manhattan, apartments in Vancouver, in London." Hubbert fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Feb 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
Right like I understand that there are very, very few markets in Canada at this point where real estate investing for rental yield makes any sense (probably just rural north at this point) and the only way that people are hoping to make money is due to asset inflation. That being said I'm more questioning the notion that certain sorts of expensive real estate products have more room to run or whether they're going to be forced into taking a breather for a bit purely because no one has that much money. People tap out and go further afield to get a cheaper product. Maybe I'm not being creative or bullish enough (!) but it seems to me there is a point where there starts to be fewer and fewer people that can afford a $1M+ apartment and that's going to cause friction against further growth. Was having beers with a realtor from my old strata council and we were chatting about this. (He was trying to convince me to buy an investment condo. I didn't bite) I asked him if there is some point where growth is higher, like some area that an investor wants to ride. Like I drew some crude curve shifting from exponential to logarithmic and asked him if this is sort of what things look like and he said yes. It sort of makes sense, like the amount of people that can spend $500k on something is greater than those that can spend $1M+, so at some point the growth when you get to the top end starts to slow due to less participation. So according to him at least there's a sweet spot strategy where you sell off expensive product to owners and buy down the curve on the cheaper product again. So like as price rises it seems more likely that the buyer will be an owner resident, because due to the high price the only way that anyone can even afford to buy such a product is by leveraging existing assets (ie. their old property they just sold). They're "moving up the housing ladder." From an investor point of view this sort of operation makes less sense. It makes more sense to do the opposite, which is to sell a high priced property and buy two lower priced properties, hoping for higher growth at the low end. Plus the amount of people that can rent a high priced product is less and so harder to get those high rents. So potentially worst of both worlds at the high end where less costs are subsidized and less growth. The market in general has been incredibly slow due to high interest rates and I don't know where we go from here. I've never been that disturbed by high prices for SFHs because they're not capable of making any more and there was a notion that the lofty prices are baking in the inevitable densification potential (which we're now seeing as 4/6plexes are starting to be legalized). In contrast it's more challenging for me to see where the growth comes from for a 1M+ townhome/condo, as there are no real limits to the amount of that product that can be made, and first time homebuyers can't afford this due to the price, which results in fewer people that can afford such a product aside from older people moving up the housing ladder or downsizing (a group that has largely failed to materialize). TL; DR: Seems more likely for a $550k 500sqft apt to go to $750k than a $1M 800 sqft apt to go to $1.2M.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
Precambrian Video Games posted:...what? Top 1% income is minimum 250-300k, you can easily afford well over $4k/month rent making that much. edit : ....and I just realized there was an entire extra page after this, whoops! midge fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Feb 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 00:54
|
|
|
Love how we all got immediately hung up on BAD MATH.COPE 27 posted:VV I live in Quebec, taxes and pension are about 55% of my income No one was saying this, I said right in the post you’re responding to that it’s a disgusting amount of money. Not one person is on the landlord’s side ITT. The housing situation sucks for everyone, although it’s obviously less acute when you’re well off because you have more ability to save a down payment and a wider range of what you can afford without hardship. That doesn’t mean it’s a reasonable cost, or that it’s not a problem. I’m still bothered by your math though. Femtosecond posted:TL; DR: Seems more likely for a $550k 500sqft apt to go to $750k than a $1M 800 sqft apt to go to $1.2M. This was a good post, ty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 07:25
|
|
|
COPE 27 posted:Anyway my point is more 1) who the hell is paying $4000 to rent a place that doesn't let you have regular size furniture Well the short answer is people who feel they don't have a better choice, because the supply of e.g. 2bed 1000+ sqft apartments and condos is fairly limited in the GTA (ymmv elsewhere). Developers are incentivized to cram as many units as they can in every floor, and since they're increasingly appealing to investors who may end up renting out to two individuals, newer builds are more likely to have 50+ sqft dedicated to a second bath that a single household might not need or want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 07:54
|
|
|
Precambrian Video Games posted:Well the short answer is people who feel they don't have a better choice, because the supply of e.g. 2bed 1000+ sqft apartments and condos is fairly limited in the GTA (ymmv elsewhere). Developers are incentivized to cram as many units as they can in every floor, and since they're increasingly appealing to investors who may end up renting out to two individuals, newer builds are more likely to have 50+ sqft dedicated to a second bath that a single household might not need or want. the one bedroom with two bathroom units are especially sad; stuck couch surfing but at least you have your own shower although with a couple sometimes having that second bathroom is handy in a pinch also the 1000 sq ft condos that are out there often do not have AC. i can live without ensuite laundry and a dishwasher (though a small family would have more issues there) but i can't live without AC in a residential tower, those things get goddamn hot in the summer now
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 13:53
|
|
|
kaom posted:
I admitted my math was wrong, was mentally including bonus in annual salary but not monthly
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
Trudeau hitching his wagon to that popular Eby guy. Ottawa matching the spend of BC and providing a pile of loans to that mildly subsidized non-profit product geared toward middle income earners. quote:Ottawa to provide $2-billion in loans to spur B.C. construction of rental units Loans were ok, but the Feds did not mirror the grants tho lol thx Trudeau.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
In awe at the former BC Liberals opposition to this as being "far short of what is required to address the housing crisis" after doing precisely jack and poo poo for affordable housing from 2001 to 2017.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
McGavin posted:In awe at the former BC Liberals opposition to this as being "far short of what is required to address the housing crisis" after doing precisely jack and poo poo for affordable housing from 2001 to 2017. Hey, now that's not true. They were making things actively worse!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:02
|
|
|
If the BC NDP keep making housing announcements, and things actually get built in the next few years, I feel like they’re sitting pretty until some other problem crops up (environment lol but not like Liberals/United have a leg to stand on there, either). Who knows if their plans to cut development time will actually work out though.COPE 27 posted:I admitted my math was wrong, was mentally including bonus in annual salary but not monthly Ohhhh I was also misreading your other post then, too. Math grumpiness resolved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
kaom posted:If the BC NDP keep making housing announcements, and things actually get built in the next few years, I feel like they’re sitting pretty until some other problem crops up (environment lol but not like Liberals/United have a leg to stand on there, either). Who knows if their plans to cut development time will actually work out though. There might be a bit of room for the BC NDP to be criticized for not delivering what people really want, affordable homes to buy (and especially affordable SFHs). The BC United ads that I'm seeing during Canucks games allude to this. BC NDP has definitely made changes that will enable the private market to be able to create more homes, but it's possible to argue that developers are going to favour rental, and that the NDP have also put a lot of money toward purpose non-profit rental. So if Falcon is competent, maybe he could spin a narrative that the BC NDP want to keep everyone as renters and are not really creating the sort of homes that people want. We'll see. So far of course United is failing badly, but this is a message the surging Conservatives would presumably pick up on as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 23:18
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:seller's agent confirmed they will be issuing us an N12 and is ignoring any mention of N11. they didn't specify if the buyer is asking for vacant possession or not. I didn't think you could no-fault evict people after buying the place. We went through that and just negotiated a new lease with our new landlords, although maybe it's different since we're in an apartment in their house. Having to deal with realtors and viewings and everything sucked enough as it is, but our old landlords didn't seem too concerned about buying us out and just waited for an offer that wasn't conditional on a vacant property.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 04:23
|
|
|
What if we encouraged PBRs and hunted amateur landlords for sport?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 08:28
|
|
|
the amateur ones are OK, it’s the ones getting paid for it that you have to watch out for
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 13:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/richardzussman/status/1760773839183859860?t=W1vUhIDkYDyWS4Qt4JYf3Q&s=19 drat maybe the NDP is good after all?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2024 23:04
|
|
|
Seems like a very easy political win here. Flipper investors are pretty much indefensible and the government has a convenient punching bag here. I don't think this will really have much impact at all on the broader housing crisis, as I don't think flipping is that big of a problem, but at the same time, I'm not sure there's any real reason not to do something like this. Might as well. I do wonder if there could be a weird downside outcome of like discouraging home builders from buying genuinely like half renovated, or so rundown to be otherwise unlivable homes and renovating to make them livable. A regular person wouldn't likely be able to buy these because they likely wouldn't be able to borrow against an unlivable property. Depends on how the bill is set up. Feels like there should be some way of carving out an allowance for home builders to create new housing out of unlivable housing and not be discouraged from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 02:09
|
|
|
Flipping is already dumb because you don't get the capital gains exemption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 02:16
|
|
|
McGavin posted:Flipping is already dumb because you don't get the capital gains exemption. You don’t get that on most investments, though, and you can only move so much money through your primary residence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 02:23
|
|
|
Like if you sell a place within one year it's just treated as business income instead of a capital gain. I wonder how this all works with condo assignments. This is what a lot of folks consider "flipping" but folks often never even take occupancy, they just assign the contract before completion, and given construction time, it's absolutely possible that it could take more than 2 years from "buying" a condo do the condo nearing completion and flipping the contract to someone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 07:22
|
|
|
I don't really get this tax at all. If someone's business is buying rundown homes and renovating them into 'turnkey' properties that your average person would be interested in buying why do they get extra taxed. Surely this would already be taxed as business income? Unless this only applies to principal residences? Or is this really just changing capital gains tax into not-capital-gains-tax? I guess fine, or whatever. Seems like a pretty low impact change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 15:16
|
|
|
This was posted by a realtor on Facebook, wife's old schoolmate. She's of Chinese descent which is funny with the communism comment: Why do I feel like we are living in a Communist country. ❌ we can’t sell our own homes that the government does not own within 2 years of purchase ❌ we can’t flip homes (how many construction jobs are they taking away?) ❌ we are forced to rent out our vacation homes, even if we want to use it 5 months out of the year ❌ we can’t do short term rentals unless it’s our primary residence ❌ we can only airbnb our basement suite if it is linked to our primary unit ❌ we have to pay transfer taxes everytime we sell and buy a property ❌foreigners can’t buy properties in our land ❌ can’t assign properties for profit ❌ we can’t rent out our properties on a fixed term tenancy ❌we can only increase the rent by 3.5% this year while the mortgage payment can increase by over 30% since a year ago (and the landlords will be forced to keep the property even though they are losing money every month, otherwise they are ‘flipping’) What is next?? ➡️how about making homes more affordable by increasing the first time home buyers threshold? ➡️reducing the amount of property transfer tax to make housing more affordable for people who are buying owner occupied properties? ➡️ making it cheaper to build properties by not having stringent building codes and making the building process easier and more efficient . The only entity I see benefitting from all these taxes is the government! #freecountry #vancouverrealestate #realtorofinstagram #realestatelifestyle #vancouverrealtor #vancouverhomes #invest #investment #property #finance #realtor #housing #listing #buyer #seller #realty #reality #unaffordablehousing
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 17:25
|
|
|
Fidelitious posted:I don't really get this tax at all. Yeah fixing up rundown homes seems like it absolutely should be an exemption. And now the government has to arrive at a clever solution to figure out this exemption or create a bureaucracy figure this out, which will eat up the revenue from the tax. I'll expand on my comment earlier with a little story of how I came to realize that it doesn't really work for a homeowner to buy these sorts of homes and renovate themselves, and how our system effectively requires dedicated construction companies around to "flip" homes. Years ago when I had SFH fever I was desperately looking for anything around that was half way affordable. I found a tiny cottage on a tiny lot in Vancouver selling for $700,000. This was at a time when the price point of everything else was like $1.4M. The house had apparently been abandoned for a decade. Inside it was down to the studs. So basically it would have needed a new everything. It would have needed to been raised for a real foundation to be put in, and completely finished, and presumably a big chunk of its walls and roof were probably gone and needed replacement. I briefly considered it though because like maybe you could do all this for like $200k and I dunno I could live in a miserable shell of a house and have no money but at least I'd have the Canadian Dream of SFH Ownership. When I mentioned it to my realtor though he pretty much killed the idea immediately because he said that no lender would lend on a property that isn't liveable, and so you'd need to buy it with cash or a super high interest construction loan. So in fact it's not really possible for a regular person to buy a derelict home or one that needs major repairs and have someone fix it. The financing structure basically ensures that for a certain sort of product, it only really works for a dedicated construction business with pre-established lines of credit and short term construction financing to buy, repair, and yes, ~flip~ these homes onto the market in order to pay off their high interest short term loans. The income they make from this is already considered business income and taxed at regular rates. So if the BC government doesn't exempt this sort of work, the net result of this bill could be that we see half finished renos and other unlivable derelict houses linger around unfixed. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Feb 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
Purgatory Glory posted:This was posted by a realtor on Facebook, wife's old schoolmate. She's of Chinese descent which is funny with the communism comment: All my apes... gone
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
Purgatory Glory posted:This was posted by a realtor on Facebook, wife's old schoolmate. She's of Chinese descent which is funny with the communism comment: Reads like an actual parody tweet. I'd say whatever the government is doing is working.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
poo poo is gonna lift off if this happensquote:Bank of Canada to cut interest rates in half by end of next year: Desjardins Take with a grain of salt as always. Bankers were also expecting rate cuts in Fall 2023. With the recent inflation numbers we've been seeing tho, the environment is more ready for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2024 20:51
|
|