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.

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

Cultural Imperial posted:

metronews.ca/news/vancouver/1205950/metro-votes-young-vancouverites-fleeing-to-more-affordable-pastures/#

Gurstein said the city�s efforts to increase the number of rental units (51 per cent of Vancouverites rent) is good, but suggested a housing authority with more power is needed to address home affordability.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Aug 31, 2021

# ¿ Nov 11, 2014 06:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 12:27

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

Cultural Imperial posted:

Alright, since you're representing so hard for the urban planning massive, explain to the thread how increasing rental supply is going to make housing more affordable. Go.

I'm not saying you're wrong. As a casual interloper, I'd love to know what learned urban planning professionals are really thinking.

I personally think Vancouver's hosed on numerous levels. I've lurked this thread for the longest time because I'm getting really tired of all the endless unwarranted optimism around the future of Vancouver's affordability - and because this is a nice place to just chill and read "dissenting" opinions.

edit: more in line with the current discussion in the thread - non-affliated housing at UBC is even worse and is a complete shitshow

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Nov 11, 2014

# ¿ Nov 11, 2014 06:54

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

Rime posted:

Yeah, why UBC decided to sell vast swathes of their precious land to condo developers for a whistle and a song is still an unbelievable to me. When that whole hullabaloo about the hospice happened, my only reaction was "Why the hell are these assholes living at UBC if they aren't students in the first place?" and then I discovered the aforementioned real estate bullshit.

UBC simply wanted an upfront cash injection to tuck away into their endowment fund, and real estate development was seen as the way forward. 900 dollars a square foot? Dang. Hard to reject that number. Mind you, basically all of the non-affliated housing is on lease-hold title. So yeah, in sum:

etalian posted:

it seemed like a good idea at the time

Anyways, I'm actually doing some work related to the Hospice right now. I can't really talk about it, though, but after deeply investigating into the matter - holy gently caress is the situation more complicated than what actually made it into the news

edit:

Cultural Imperial posted:

So what is the SCARP thinking? Do they really take themselves seriously? Do you know Tsur Sommerville? Can I pay you to punch him in the loving face?

1. Can't tell you. Too many opposing views in the department.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Take it to PMs, we can negotiate from there.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Nov 11, 2014

# ¿ Nov 11, 2014 07:54

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

Straight from Concord Pacific and built for our Web 2.0 world, here's your chance to explore downtown Surrey (camera phone in hand) so you can win yourself some quality food from Church's Chicken and Fresh Slice. Behold, the Surrey Transformation Selfie Tour!

# ¿ Nov 11, 2014 21:03

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

Oh boy.

quote:

'Real-estate exec on Chinese money: 'There is a huge stake for a lot of local people in keeping this thing going'

No one knows better than real estate insiders how money flooding in from mainland China is driving up prices in Vancouver, the second-most unaffordable city in the world.

Shanghai-based Dan Scarrow, of Macdonald Realty Ltd., has followed the money and is among the few real estate executives speaking candidly about the transformative impact of Chinese wealth on Vancouver.

�Our analysis last year indicated that roughly one-third of buyers in Vancouver had some connection to mainland China,� Scarrow said. �China represents the greatest rapid accumulation of wealth in the history of the planet. That wealth is now spreading out of China and around the globe. It will transform not just Vancouver, but the entire world.�

The China factor is a sensitive issue in Vancouver. Evidence of a housing market increasingly disconnected from local salaries is mounting. Vancouver voters last fall said their biggest concern was housing affordability. Several months ago Vancouver city council asked staff to study whether vacant homes owned by investors are a problem in the city. That study is not complete and Vancouver�s top housing officials � city manager Penny Ballem, planning director Brian Jackson and chief housing officer Muktar Latif � are unsure exactly what data the city can gather and when the study will be complete.

Former city councillor Peter Ladner and departed chief city planner Brent Toderian told The Province there are many political and economic reasons for Vancouver�s leaders to avoid probing the impact of foreign investment on real estate prices. Community activist Randy Helten said city hall is actually making Vancouver more attractive to offshore investment by failing to act while other cities around the world take steps to regulate money flowing from China and other countries.

One top Vancouver real estate executive, who did not want to be named, said in 2011 it was estimated that for every $1-million spent on all types of real estate in Vancouver, $300,000 could be attributed to demand from China. Several months ago, coincidentally, the Bank of Canada estimated that some markets in the country are over-valued by up to 30 per cent.

The executive said that people in his business generally don�t want the public to understand the magnitude of offshore investment, and certainly don�t want city hall to do anything about it.

�I own a business, I drive a German sedan, I wear a handmade suit made in Italy, and I drink good wine,� he said. �The people I hang out with, these guys want every flood gate wide open. If we cut off the buyer source they lose commissions. There is a huge stake for a lot of local people in keeping this thing going.�

MILLIONAIRE MIGRANTS

While Vancouver city hall struggles to grasp whether offshore investment causes affordability problems, a number of academics and economists have already drawn conclusions.

Conference Board of Canada senior economist Robin Wiebe has documented how spurts in China�s economic growth between 1991 and 2013 coincided with surges in Vancouver�s property prices.

Oxford-educated UBC geographer David Ley, who is researching housing bubbles in Pacific Rim cities, has completed a number of studies and a book which point to millionaire migrants as the key factor in Vancouver�s housing price boom.

Ley said there is no database to exactly specify who the �external players� in Vancouver housing are. But by far the largest impact on real estate prices come from overseas immigration and foreign buyers. Ley said that he sees among Vancouver�s political elite a denial of the facts and lack of willingness to regulate real estate investment.

�The scariest response of all is to leave it to the market, and I�m surprised that politicians haven�t been punished by the electorate for their inactivity,� Ley said. �There is much more intervention occurring in other expensive cities, even those with free-market governments, like London, Hong Kong and Singapore. By doing nothing we are driving out young people and families born in this region.�

Ladner points to various economic reports and his own observations as a westside Vancouver resident as proof of the influence of wealth from China on Vancouver housing. Ladner said offshore investment is causing a domino effect with westside residents selling their homes to investors �bidding insane prices,� and then taking their windfalls to buy homes in the east side or the suburbs. The homes in the westside are then increasingly left empty, but the prices of lived in homes are subsequently pressed higher across the region. The long-term trend is that people who earn livings in Metro Vancouver are being pushed further and further outside Vancouver.

Ladner said questioning the influence of investment in Vancouver real estate gets into sensitive territory, but is not racist.

�It is not buyers from one country or another � the issue is people who buy real estate for investment and squeeze out people who want to buy real estate to live in.�

Ladner notes that many of the other contenders for �most unaffordable city� � Hong Kong and Sydney for example � have already taken actions such as adjusting property transfer tax regimes, but he doesn�t expect this will happen in Vancouver.

�It will be difficult if not impossible to get enough political momentum behind a change,� Ladner said. �There are many vested interests lined up in favour of the status quo, starting with existing homeowners, who benefit greatly on rising home values based on the widest array of possible buyers, and then the financial institutions, the realtors, the developers, and the politicians who depend on their backing to get elected.�

Ladner said he finds it �very disingenuous� for some of the top politicians and business people and bureaucrats in the city �to say, �Oh gee, we have no idea who is buying these homes.��

He said Vancouver�s real estate marketers are among the most sophisticated data gatherers in the world, and city hall works closely with developers.

�But it makes it hard for the people at city hall to be determined about these issue, when they look over their shoulders and see the people that are paying their election bills.�

Toderian said he doesn�t necessarily believe the city should intervene in the housing market, and any intervention could trigger �unintended consequences.� But it is critical for planners, Toderian said, to thoroughly study all facets of real estate investment, vacant homes, and impacts, carefully delineating the complicated factors involved.

�The study needs to be someone independent from city hall because it is amazing how the math can be politicized,� Toderian said.

Anne McMullin, CEO of the Urban Development Institute, said the industry is wary of any demand-side interventions in Vancouver�s free market. The UDI is willing and able to partner with all levels of government to increase various forms of affordable housing supply, McMullin said. She suggested the UDI wouldn�t support ideas such as a tax on empty condos, even if city hall were to find that absentee ownership is a big factor in Vancouver.

�What constitutes an empty home?� McMullin said. �They would typically be at the higher end, and I don�t know that putting any tax on (empty condos) would help with affordable housing.�

Helten, a council watchdog and former Vancouver mayoral candidate, said that in the 2011 election campaign both Vision mayoral candidate Gregor Robertson and NPA candidate Suzanne Anton said they would not intervene in real estate investment.

�It is intentional that they are avoiding this, because the development-funded parties want to increase supply and not limit demand,� Helten said. �Increasing housing supply does boost the city�s economy, but they are failing to look at the overall needs of society. I believe they have an obligation to look at the infinite demand from offshore capital.�

Helten said that while some warn about unintended consequences in market intervention, Vancouver�s inaction on offshore investment is already unleashing an unintended consequence.

�Other jurisdictions are seriously looking at the problem of foreign capital coming in and they are tightening up regulations,� Helten said. �That just means that Vancouver is increasingly exposed as a destination for the big money.�

Meanwhile, the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver reported Tuesday that prices for a detached home in Metro Vancouver had increased 9.7 per cent in the past year to an average price of $1,260,000.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2015 18:21

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

Baronjutter posted:

Maybe I'm not seeing it, but I don't understand how it could be so different in Victoria. The inspectors here can be really brutal, it doesn't matter if you're building a tower or splitting up a house into a tri-plex, they will ride you on everything they can. Some are nice and actually have some common sense and knowledge of construction, but there's a bunch of new guys who know nothing about buildings or construction and have just memorized the building code and regurgitate it, very often in situations where it doesn't reasonably apply or with a bizarre interpretation of it.

Rime posted:

Victoria (and the island in general) has remained relatively insulated from the degeneration of Canada over the past few decades and still manages to give a poo poo where it matters. Seriously, every time I go to the Island I love it, because it feels like stepping back into the country and province which I grew up in.

Victoria also has an extraordinary OCP, imo.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2015 00:53

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

Femtosecond posted:

Regarding the Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) that Baronjutter is talking about that developers are forced to make by the City, I've read positions on both sides. Some say that this doesn't affect the price of the units and the other opinion is that developers are dead set on making their x% profit and CACs of whatever price will just result in an increase of unit price by an equivalent amount. I have no idea who is right here. It's a black box to me.

CACs are super fun because they're extralegal "negotiated settlements" that are super sketchy. I could yell about them all day.

Anyways, one prevailing theory is that CACs are taken out of the residual (land costs), not the overall market price of the unit. This means that there's less money to go around for acquiring land, which reduces the rate of development, and subsequently increases the price of housing (supply no longer matching demand).

# ¿ May 1, 2015 08:34

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

Baudin posted:

Unsure about other municipalities but in Edmonton developers front the initial cost of infrastructure, the real problems begin once the infrastructure needs to be repaired, since that's not cheap.

Alberta, Ontario and B.C. have this ability (levying fees for specific new capital infrastructure in response to new development). In B.C., we call them DCCs (Development Cost Charges). There are other instruments, I'm sure.

Femtosecond posted:

One solution is Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) on rezonings to generate income directly associated with various local amenity projects. In Vancouver I've seen these dollars contributed toward social housing, arts organizations, and daycare spaces, which seem to me to be areas higher orders of government should be handling, except of course they don't care at all, and so its left to municipalities.

Those two are already covered by DCLs.

Femtosecond posted:

The possible knock on effects of municipal reliance on CACs is higher prices for housing as well as bad urban planning, as politicians are incentivised to rezone to higher densities than what should maybe be appropriate in order to get higher CAC payments from developers.

Beyond their basis in legality, CACs also seriously affect the dynamic of how planning/zoning should work. Some say it's a step away from selling zoning.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 18:03 on May 1, 2015

# ¿ May 1, 2015 17:55

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

Femtosecond posted:

You're right. There must be some overlap though. Looking at the CoV website it says CACs go toward:

[...]

As well this article says that some $11.4 million worth of social housing was purchased through CAC money so there must be some pipeline from CACs to social housing even if it's not direct?

Not trying to refute your point, you're absolutely right that CACs have far more flexibility in what they can be spent on (a beneficial side effect of their extralegal status). This also leads into another fun question: should municipalities really be doing this? Aren't they just enabling further downloading of responsibility from senior levels of government?

Baronjutter posted:

[...] What I'd prefer to see are actual long-term taxes set at levels to maintain what is required in the long term, and make the taxes "progressive" in the sense that land-use that isn't good for the city or costs more to maintain is taxed at a higher rate than types of land use / development that is much more financially sustainable [...]

That's the dream, anyways. Do you think that developers have any obligation to pay for the costs of new development on existing infrastructure? If so, how should they 'pay' back into improving it? The taxation model is nice, but you're putting the fiscal burden of new infrastructure on existing users now. :[

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 18:28 on May 1, 2015

# ¿ May 1, 2015 18:21

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

Cultural Imperial posted:

I can't believe you dumb motherfuckers are actually entertaining the idea of cutting back on municipal amenities to ~make housing affordable~

Where we're going, we don't need roads.

# ¿ May 1, 2015 18:23

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

Cultural Imperial posted:

Is every loving urban planner a loving moron? They're like the mouth breathing psychology students of geography and economics.

# ¿ May 8, 2015 18:32

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

So, as you folks already know, Andy Yan's been receiving some flak for his latest research.

I don't know if it was already mentioned previously in the thread, but Matt Hern recently posted a rebuttal ("Matt Hern: Vancouver's core real-estate problem is profiteering and not whether buyers are of Chinese ancestry"). Here's a summary excerpt below:

quote:

The issue is not 'Chinese' money: the core problem facing our housing market is that it is a market, turning land and homes into property on which to speculate and profit. It makes no difference at all whether a particular investment in Vancouver's housing market comes from Chengdu or Calgary, Kerala or Kerrisdale. The causes of our current crisis are speculation, profiteering off of shelter, governments in default of obligations to ensure affordable rental housing, and a policy regime that consistently privileges the most wealthy among us. Those are the issues that we need to talk about, not the imagined or real ethnic background of buyers.

I'm genuinely surprised that the conversation hasn't been shut down by 'racism' this time around. Today's article by Douglas Todd is pretty good, and it confirms that Yan's methodology and ethical process was pretty drat sound. Another summary below:

quote:

"But was there anything about the study by Yan, who is acting head of Simon Fraser University�s City Program and a planner at Bing Thom Architects, that was �racist?� Leading Canadian figures in anti-racism organizations, in applied ethics, in urban planning, in immigration consulting and other fields say, �No.�"

[edit: added because next line sounds like CI would appreciate it]

"... As Yan said, race-baiting is especially suspicious when it comes from developers and politicians. �My great-granddad paid the head tax,� Yan has said. �So to somehow use (concerns about) �racism� to protect your privilege? That�s just absurd. This is an almost uniquely Vancouver reaction...�

Here's another by Camilla Lade, a rebuttal directed towards Hern. Here's a choice quote, which I think nicely summarizes this whole situation (edit: but is kinda lol-worthy, considering political interests):

quote:

Why are we wasting our time accusing each other of racism and thereby immobilizing politicians into inaction? Instead of pointing fingers, we should be addressing creating fair, equitable policies and laws that benefit our ethnically diverse and unequal class system. Places like Hong Kong, Sydney, and Singapore have all done it. It is time we stopped pointing fingers and allowing wealthy developers to capitalize on our inaction.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 14, 2015

# ¿ Nov 14, 2015 20:46

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

Franks Happy Place posted:

More importantly, the percentage of land designated industrial (or commercial or residential etc) in a given Lower Mainland municipality is fixed by the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy, which is a binding development plan Vancouver is a party to.

Not as binding as you'd think, as noted in one firm's summary of Greater Vancouver Regional District v. Township of Langley:

Greater Vancouver Regional District v. Township of Langley and Wall GVRD v. Langley (Township) and Hendricks: Regional Growth Strategies � Just Wishful Thinking? posted:

The Court also found that the GVRD had exaggerated the legal impact of the regional context statement and found that the regional context statement did not create enforceable duties but rather �guidelines for long term planning�. The Court accepted the position that the regional context statement within the OCP created a visionary set of policies that could not be interpreted with the same rigour as legislation.

This is more explicitly outlined in the judgement itself:

Greater Vancouver Regional District v. Township of Langley, 2014 BCSC 414 posted:

[58] Secondly, the GVRD has exaggerated the legal impact of the regional context statement, OCP and Strategic Plan. The language of the planning documents reflects that they are only guidelines expressing policy. They are not written in the specific and directive style of legislation, regulations or bylaws. For instance, with regard to the Green Zone, the Strategic Plan commits the district to �enter into partnerships� with all levels of government to �seek through partnerships� the �identification� of land that can be added to the Green Zone, and the �development of new tools� to protect the Green Zone such as creating parks or trusts. In the same vein, the regional context �identifies� issues that overlap between the OCP and RGS and identifies ways to harmonize the two over time. These are not enforceable duties but guidelines for long term planning. As noted by the Court of Appeal, the documents are a �visionary� set of policies that cannot be interpreted in the same manner as legislation.

edit: let's avoid the consistency debate please, the online LGA is down

# ¿ Jan 14, 2016 19:42

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

Moinkmaster posted:

Would actually zoning and constructing and using apartment-style hotels/motels be a viable niche for a company to get into? Spread some 5-10 unit things around and have them in spots that aren't in the center of downtown or out in the slums, put laundry machines and some kitchen stuff in, and the like, and then actually have them properly insured and everyone involved covered if (when) something goes wrong.

Depends on the context. I've seen these sorts of hotels in Whistler and Regina (serving extended-stay tourists, temporary oil & gas employees, etc). If you're going for 5-10 units, you may as well include it as part of a greater 'traditional' hotel development.

Moinkmaster posted:

Or is the Airbnb model of rentals more or less like Uber in that its main feature of cost effectiveness is that it ignores so many laws and regulations?

Yes, among other things.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 17:10 on May 2, 2016

# ¿ May 2, 2016 17:08

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

Femtosecond posted:

- Claim that there are parts of the ALR land that is poor for farming and could be better used for housing.
- Promise during election to "review" ALR for "inefficiencies."
- When NDP protests argue that this is another example of the NDP being anti-development and anti-everything.
- Argue that NDP affordable housing policies would lower homeowner equity, which would hurt families.
- After winning the election take vast areas of Tsawwassen and Delta farmland out of the ALR for property development.

Makes a little sense, considering that the ALC recently received a ton of funding to 1) hire more staff, and 2) enforce a new application turnaround time of 60 days or less.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2016 01:23

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

leftist heap posted:

They can do exactly that, it's basically why they exist and they do it all the time but it's usually just as part of affordable housing initiatives. If you really want to read the nitty gritty you can read the Local Government Act or the Community Charter, but they have pretty broad powers to reject or approve any development. A municipality can enact a community plan that essentially says "No more lovely condos gently caress off" and reject all condo applications that come across their desks. Easy. A supply sider like yourself should know these things.

Femtosecond posted:

I'm not sure. Here's the section from the Local Government Act

[...]

If municipalities have no ability to create zoning restrictions with tenure, then their only ability to restrict condos would be to zone everything single family housing.

As someone who is familiar to the municipal side of things, I thought I�d contribute.

The inclusion of non-market housing in residential development is actually a little more complicated than that. Usually through previously established housing policy, a municipality or regional district (�local government�) can negotiate for the inclusion of non-market housing as a condition of rezoning approval (e.g: Woodward�s special Comprehensive Development zoning district).

To ensure that the developer actually follows through with this, and that the relevant housing agencies (like a non-profit housing provider) are involved, a local government will require the relevant parties to enter into a housing agreement so that the negotiated terms are now legally binding. This applies to aspects of housing that cannot be dealt with through the exercise of the zoning power, like requiring a number or percentage of dwellings in a proposed development to be rental units.

There are other neat ways to add affordable housing to residential developments through zoning (specifically density bonusing), but that sort of thing is far less flexible than a policy/negotiation-based approach.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Aug 17, 2016

# ¿ Aug 17, 2016 07:37

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

edit: gently caress double post

# ¿ Aug 17, 2016 07:38

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

namaste faggots posted:

seriously do some of you dumb assholes really think ~urban planning~ has any real, lasting role in affordable housing

# ¿ Aug 18, 2016 16:34

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

RBC posted:

it's because rezoning industrial areas in metropolitan centres is against every official plan

much like strip clubs, once industrial land is rezoned it disappears forever, never to be seen again. city centres have shortages of industrial zoned land for this reason.

so they are trying to justify why they are going against official planning policies

You hit the nail right on the head here. There's a reason why the preservation of industrial lands, and the restriction of non-industrial uses in these areas, is really popular in present-day industrial land use planning practice these days. Turns out industrial land use is essential to the web of land uses that permits a city to actually function #wow #whoa

Lexicon posted:

It's almost as if zoning is largely a bullshit concept

Sure, keep the chemical plants and such geographically separate, but otherwise who gives an actual gently caress

It's the best tool urban planners have for guiding and regulating land use in any particular jurisdiction. Have any alternatives? Houston doesn't count.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 04:16

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

Subjunctive posted:

What's a good introduction to modern zoning theory?

I've got a lot of recommendations, BUT my absolute favorite book on zoning theory is A Better Way to Zone: Ten Principles to Create More Liveable Cities from Don Elliott. It's a fairly riveting read that explains everything about zoning - how it's evolved over the past 90+ years (looking at other variants, such as form-based code / performance zoning / planned unit developments / etc), the current problems endemic to the primary form of zoning we see in most cities (best described as "hybrid-Eucliean"), and how communities go about addressing these issues (the ten principles). It has a permanent place on my shelf.

edit:

ephori posted:

~~SimCity~~ Cities: Skylines

l o l

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Oct 20, 2016

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 04:27

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

toe knee hand posted:

Houston does count. Houston counts as the horror story, the example of why zoning actually does help because holy poo poo look at Houston.

Agreed. There's a link hiding in my post ... and the first paragraph under Section II: Land Use Controls in Houston from the previously linked article reveals my point:

quote:

Although scholars reference Houston to criticize zoning and advance calls for deregulation, these arguments appear misguided. Houston is not a free market model for land use control. In fact, government regulations pervade land use decisions in numerous contexts, and recent ordinances indicate a trend toward greater regulation. Rather than represent an alternative to zoning, Houston's system of land use management appears to resemble zoning more closely than deregulation.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 04:37

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

Baronjutter posted:

CI's on probation, we've got a week to talk about urban planning.

Now you know why I'm here. :ssh:

The Butcher posted:

That sounds pretty loving boring so I'm going to have to award the point to the video game recommendation here.

To quote the book's first two paragraphs ...

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Oct 20, 2016

# ¿ Oct 20, 2016 05:00

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

large hands posted:

Urban planners from around the world study Nanaimo as a cautionary example of how not to do things.

The best part is that this isn't even a joke.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2017 08:05

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

Femtosecond posted:

The startup zoning is such a terrible idea. By baking in such narrow wording into the zoning the city has made the property extra inflexible. What happens if there's a tech downturn and demand for these spaces decreases? Well then you have the situation of Great Northern Way, which a previous council zoned for "high tech" use in 1999, but has remained a parking lot ever since because the area was never trendy enough for tech companies and the land owners can't do anything else with the land. The city is just making work for some future council that is going to spend time to undo this later.

If it wasn't for the fact that these meetings are at like 5pm and impossible to attend, it would have considered going and asking council if they were even considering the scenario where Hootsuite doesn't become a success, Vancouver's tech ecosystem stagnates and what happens then.

Recall all those articles from a few months ago about investors (foreign and local) starting to wildly speculate on commercial and industrial land and driving up valuations. This is going to have a big direct impact on small businesses all over Vancouver, but especially in Mount Pleasant.

The city is also now floating the idea of putting housing into the False Creek Flats industrial area, which seems totally contradictory to what I thought the broad goals of the area were. This will drive up valuations, increase taxes on businesses, and undermine industrial use. I could see a lot of businesses being displaced by this.

And just like with the Molson Brewery property, long-standing industrial users shall bend the knee before The Market. Hail! HAIL!

# ¿ Feb 1, 2017 23:06

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

Rime posted:

Damage report in this bosa tower: 28 units totalled and being gutted to the studs. Three leaks identified in the hot water pipes with more suspected.

But sure, condo construction in this town is perfectly flawless and built to such high standards.

Any takes on other developers in the lower mainland?

# ¿ Feb 18, 2017 17:31

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

leftist heap posted:

actually municipalities can't do anything about housing stock. people in this very thread have told me so.

I remember the last time this conversation came up. Municipalities have extremely limited instruments at their disposal. Young & Anderson recently published a great seminar paper about affordable housing recently. Key line from the paper below:

quote:

At present, local governments in BC must continue to rely on policy, density bonus and negotiation to secure affordable housing from development.

All three of these things depend heavily upon the inclination of the developer (remember: these things are voluntary) ... and the broad discretion and political temperament of Council (ding ding ding). New West's fairly unique in that their mayor has a background in urban planning, and their councillors are fairly progressive.

edit: yes i know that was sarcasm leftist heap i just wanted to make a point that wasn't just run-of-the-mill armchair urban planning goon speculation

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Feb 28, 2017

# ¿ Feb 27, 2017 22:53

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

Baronjutter posted:

New vancouver condo "quality"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j3SChqp51Y

only the best from westbank

# ¿ Jun 2, 2017 05:13

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

Baronjutter posted:

It's really depressing talking to "urban planners" or people with a keen interest in the subject but absolutely zero understanding of economics or finance. The solution to vancouver is more supply. The problem with vancouver and every problem in the entire world is nimby's fighting density. With enough density all problems are solved. Gentrification isn't a problem, it's once again solved by more supply. There's no economic problems in Vancouver because prices are high, it's simply supply and demand. We could be living in a post-scarcity utopia if those drat politicians and racist nimbys (poor ethnic communities are just racist against rich white people) just allowed the density that the market is demanding.

You try to talk about local incomes, or actual population increases, or market speculation, or our insane levels of debt, and it's all just waved away because ultimately it's only about supply and demand.

Femtosecond posted:

I don't personally know any planners, but from what I see on blogs and twitter, it does seem like a lot of them do have their blinders on and are ignoring broader issues in favour of focusing on novel dutch bike lane intersections and how shipping containers can liven up the public realm. Perhaps some do have strong opinions on housing solutions, but keep a lid on it due to the vaguely political nature of their job. On the other hand maybe a lot of them really don't give a poo poo about the complex issues that affect a city, and just like playing in the sandbox and designing some unrealistic neighbourhood with no regard for reality. They get excited when their boss asks them to draw a new Innovation Hub for some aspirational planning document.

Their job revolves around designing new things, new buildings and neighbourhoods, so it's not surprising to me that their opinions would tilt mostly toward adding new supply as a start.

It seems to me that they're pretty limited in what they can do. Vancouver is not in the position of Vienna and isn't able to build publicly owned housing on a massive scale. Many of the issues relevant to the housing bubble can only be tackled by federal and provincial politicians, not municipal bureaucrats. The city of Vancouver should raise property taxes, but again that seems like a political decision, and not something planners weigh in on.

Everyone should read what sitchensis posted.

sitchensis posted:

Just FYI urban planning is where Marxists go to die. Most urban planners are extremely knowledgeable about how systems of land, communities, transportation and economies interact. Unfortunately, urban planning as a job basically cedes all its power to monied interests, wealthy landowners who vote, developers and politicians -- and often times all of these are one in the same!

This happens in every city, with every council, all the time. Urban planners just castrated bureaucrats who were unfortunate enough to think they could affect some positive change through their field. The people who actually shape where you live are developers and the corrupt politicians who enable them.

edit: And in case anyone forgot to read the most important part of his post:

sitchensis posted:

Just FYI urban planning is where Marxists go to die.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jun 28, 2017

# ¿ Jun 28, 2017 02:40

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

RBC posted:

yeah who doesn't love not knowing if you'll find a parking spot on the street, having your retard neighbour ram into your car while he attempts to parellel park his f250 while taking up 2 street spots, and having your over extended next door neighbour renovate by banging on your bedroom walls all day every weekend for 2 years because they spent all their money on their mortgage and are too broke to hire professionals, it's loving awesome. and for the low low price of 1,000,000 this luxurious lifestyle could be yours in downtown toronto

i also hope ur ready for party wall and drainage covenants motherfuka

# ¿ Jun 29, 2017 02:01

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

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...rticle37323264/

beedie's gonna go for board of variance to appeal their rejection PLACE YOUR VOTES NOW

# ¿ Dec 19, 2017 03:27

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

MEANWHILE AT THE B.C. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ....

B.C. government to give cities power to create rental-only zoning, cracks down on presale flipping posted:

Local governments in B.C. could soon have the power to zone areas for rental housing.

Municipal Affairs Minister Selina Robinson introduced the Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act in the legislature Tuesday, which would give municipalities the following powers:

- Zone undeveloped land for rental housing, or mandate a certain percentage of units on the land be rental.
- Force existing rental properties to remain rental only after redevelopment.

The changes were promised by the government in February's budget, as part of its 30-point housing plan.

"We are committed to ensuring that local governments have the supports, the resources and information they require to decide how they can best address the housing needs in their community," said Robinson.

However, municipalities can choose not to use the new zoning tools, or only mandate a small percentage of units in rental areas actually be rentals.

"Local governments have to have autonomy. What might work here in Victoria might not work in Merritt," said Robinson.

"They're facing this housing affordability crisis along with us ... so I expect local government will continue to work [with us] in making sure there's the kind of housing people need."
Finance Minister Carole James (right), along with Municipal Affairs Minister Selina Robinson (centre) and Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps (left) speak to reporters about the new housing legislation on Apr. 24, 2018. (Mike McArthur/CBC)
Cracking down on flipping of presales

The government also brought forward two other pieces of legislation on Tuesday related to housing.

One amends the Real Estate Development Marketing Act, forcing real estate developers to report when a condo unit is flipped prior to the completion of construction, and allowing the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate to investigate if there is evidence that such information is not being disclosed.

Penalties have also been increased by more than 1,000 per cent � up to $250,000 fines for individuals and $500,000 for corporations not complying with a requirement. If criminal charges are laid, fines will be up to $1.25 million for individuals or corporations in a first conviction, and up to $2.5 million for a second conviction.

"It will be significant. We know how important it is, and that British Columbians expect that everyone pay their fair share of taxes, and if someone is avoiding their taxes ... on a condo presale on a contract flip, then they're not following the law," said finance minister Carole James.

The final bill will force municipalities to put out a report on housing needs every five years to help with community planning. The government is providing $5 million over the next three years to assist with the data collection.

Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps said she was optimistic the changes to rental zoning would spur action.

"I think this will also be welcomed by the development community interested already in building rental housing," she said.

"They know if they build on that land, and they build rental, they don't have to jump through any hoops, they just have to get their shovels in the ground."

Urban Development Institute CEO Anne McMullin agreed, and was generally complimentary of the multiple pieces of new legislation. But she cautioned that the onus was on municipal governments to quickly prezone for rental � and said permitting times in many cities was onerous for a type of housing that generates less revenue than condominiums.

"We've got to work through this quickly. It can take four to five years to approve projects in the City of Vancouver, and then it's got to get built. So we're eight, 10, 12 years from any relief, so we've got to move fast."

edit: gently caress beaten by thc

# ¿ Apr 26, 2018 04:24

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

Patrick Condon recently prepared a 'draft' opinion piece on the proposed UBC Skytrain line ... and why it's a terrible idea.

Interesting read. See below.

quote:

Draft article on the madness of the UBC subway. I admit that it has made me quite insane. Sigh. Read at your own risk. Warning 2,700 crazy words.

I have been pondering why the Broadway Subway issue makes me apoplectic in a way that provokes concerned looks from friends and loved ones. I am certain they are alarmed when - as we are casually discussing almost any civic issue, from housing affordability to climate change to bike lanes - I am never more than ten minutes away from blurting something like: "That's why the Broadway Subway is such a terrible idea!"

All these negative feelings were getting in the way of my holiday cheer (and even dislodging my alternative dark musings on the forthcoming climate apocalypse) when I happened across my own University President's Christmas day opinion piece published in Business in Vancouver on what must be the world's most expensive Christmas wish ever: his wish for a four billion dollar underground subway all the way out to UBC. The title says it all. For Christmas he wants a subway because: "Extending SkyTrain to UBC Would Encourage Economic Growth and Prosperity Throughout the Region". His claim is unsupported by any sort of cost benefit analysis of course, as all Christmas wishes are I guess (after all, who among us ever really needed a pony).

So partly for my own sake (and because I have tenure, thank god) I will try to make as clear as possible why building this subway to UBC, far from being an economic boon, produces a long list of potentially disastrous consequences for the city, the region, and even for UBC itself. Or maybe I am just nuts.

First, I am fully aware by this time that among my fellow environmentalists I am in a minority. They all seem to agree that subways are an unreservedly good thing and a subway all the way to UBC is twice as good as a subway only half the way to UBC. I get that.

I am also very aware that the Vancouver Booster Class are all wildly enthusiastic as well, seeing in the subway catalytic capacities to vault our region into greatness, the same Olympian heights that UBC President Ono alludes to. I just don't fit in either group sadly.

I gain some converts among those who fit in neither class, i.e. those whose major issue is fear of not having a decent place to live and the like. Sadly that group tends to just shake their heads and mutter something to the effect: "twas ever thus".

In short, they are not strong allies.

Or perhaps their "plus ca change" attitude is merely an indication of their sanity, something I lack.

It may be that I have come to my position by following a path few others have travelled. And this might explain why I see the issue differently than most of my peers. You see, I have spent the better part of a quarter century focussed, in my academic work, on the arcane issue of "green infrastructure". Green infrastructure is the study of how to make streets, pipes, public spaces, and movement systems "greener", i.e. more sustainable.

In the pursuit of this end I invented a slogan that essentialized the optimal qualities of green infrastructure. Our goal for green infrastructure should be "lighter, greener, cheaper, and smarter" as opposed to the heavy, grey, expensive and stupid infrastructure we build now.

The slogan fits, I think, because we have over time, gotten into the bad habit of spending more and more money on infrastructure - with no appreciable improvement in performance. It also became more and more clear to me, that for every dollar spent on pavement you produce a dollar's worth of environmental damage (through accelerating runoff and water pollution for example). So it follows that the way to make cities greener is to spend less money on infrastructure, not more!

In pursuing this line of reasoning, I discovered that between 1940 and 2010 Canadians had increased their per capita expenditures on infrastructure by over 400% (in constant dollars) and that municipal budgets had also commensurately exploded by similar per capita amounts.

The second troubling finding was that within the next 50 to 80 years, we are going to be hit with a real whopper of a bill to replace and upgrade all this oversized infrastructure, and that this bill will likely come due right when we are also trying to retrofit our cities to against the ravages of global warming. Very few people realize that infrastructure, with rare exceptions, needs to be completely rebuilt every 90 to 100 years at costs that can often exceed the cost of new construction. The current failure of the New York City subway system, now 100 years old, is a stark reminder of this daunting fact. So there may be very good reasons to question any expenditures on infrastructure on both fiscal and environmental grounds, and the Broadway Subway is no exception.

Thus forgive me if I start with a deep dive into how much all this will cost and put this in terms that can be best understood: actual costs per citizen-taxpayer. I beg the reader to trust that my ballpark numbers are credible. If I try to explain every element of my methodology I will lose you fast. For those of a skeptical nature I am posting my methods and rationale on line here.

Show Me The Money.

The easiest way to understand cost is to put it in terms similar to a house mortgage. Homes are most often paid off a bit every month for 30 years. Big ticket infrastructure systems are no different. Government typically does not pay cash for a new bridge or subway, They take out a loan (called a bond) that they pay back, with interest, over a period often as long as 30 years. The Translink published budget gives us a window into these costs, called the cost of amortization (principal and interest costs) per year. Dividing these annual costs by the number of Vancouver region taxpayers gives us a rough estimate of how much each family pays per year, a cost that is sort of hard to realize since it never comes as a bill market "mortgage payment for skytrain". These payments are spread out in the form of a piece of your federal and provincial income taxes, your property taxes, gas tax, utility bill surcharges and so forth, such that you never really know how much it is really costing.

So I will try to tell you. Based on the translink budget, dividing up their amortization costs (which are largely to pay off skytrain bonds) each family in the lower mainland pays about 250 dollars a year to pay off the translink debt. Since that amount is the "local share" of what was typically one third of costs shared by the provincial and federal governments (and since there is only one taxpayer) we can say that some combination of taxpayer is paying $750 dollars a year for our current skytrain system.

Now the Mayors Ten Year Plan has another 5 billion in it for big ticket items of the Broadway Subway and "whatever it is this week" transit for Surrey, Going through the math and adding this to the yearly per family bill boosts it by another $350 per year up to $1,100. That starts to be a noticeable amount for sure.

Now we come to the UBC extension. Since I think its already very clear that the province and the federal government won't be adding the billions necessary for this Vancouver only serving leg ( I could be wrong, I have been before) lets divide this cost among the families of just Vancouver for whom the extension mostly serves. This narrower tax payer pool for such an expensive piece of infrastructure adds an additional 1,000 to 1,100 per family to the bill. All in all you are looking at a per family annual bill of up to $2,200 per year.

One more thing. The skytrain system, despite its much touted lack of driver costs, is very expensive. Sources allow us to safely estimate that operation costs for the 13 km Broadway Subway to UBC would be 80 million per year, or $320 per Vancouver family bringing the annual bill to over $2,500.

But I love paying taxes!!

So from the perspective of a tax hating conservative the subway makes no sense. But here is the thing, I am not a tax hating conservative but a tax loving liberal! And it still makes me crazy! Why? Because it dramatically accelerates the forces of inequality that are already raging in this town, forcing all the people i care about out of the city and making Vancouver an unlivable hellhole unless you are rich.

Yes, I know, more ravings of a madman. Perhaps it's true, but hear me out. Maybe I can convince you. Or maybe by writing this I will find the holes in my argument and talk myself back from the cliff.

OK, here is the thing. Building subways seems irrevocably tied to unaffordable housing to the point of almost certifiable causation. If you doubt me just take a look at the marketing for the Oakridge project, marketed as the "Living City" with its own culture as yet "Unwritten". This marketing ploy is crazy-making for sure, and most of the folks that I interact with feel the same. But let me focus on just one personally disappointing aspect of this project: its horrifyingly explicit class war - a war of the very rich against everyone else - a war of the investor class against the wage earner class.

Guess what? The war is over and the rich investor class won.

The rest of us can move to Mission.

Really, the big problem for me and why this has all made me insane (I am close to accepting the fact) is that for decades I have been lobbying across North America to turn old car oriented shopping malls into transit oriented high density city centres! It's so obviously the way to retrofit urban sprawl! It's the lowest hanging of low hanging fruit! One story blow-away buildings surrounded by an ocean of parking. I couldn't wait for them to die and be replaced by miniature versions of the West End. Twelve story towers set in a very green grid of walkable streets, with everyone from elderly widows to gay couples, to gad students out on the streets or lounging on decks.

What I never imagined was that when it happened it would not be built for my imagined middle class occupants. Oh no. But rather for the Bentley and Ferrari crowd (will they really ride the crowded Canada Line?).

I am not even exaggerating. The apartments at Oak Ridge are all being sold for over $2,000 per square foot. Some for far more.

What does that mean? It means that a studio apartment would cost a million and a tiny two bedroom apartment would cost two million (condo fees excluded). Let's say you want to raise a family there. That tiny two bedroom condo would cost you, at current rates, about $8,000.00 a month. Average family income in Vancouver is $80,000 per year before taxes. $65,000 after tax at most. Just the mortgage would be $96,000 a year.

Who are all these two bedroom units for? Only 15% of Vancouver families make over $150,000 per year. And even this cohort can only afford, using the five times annual income rule to establish affordability, a $750,000 unit.

Oakridge is clearly housing by the one percent for the one percent, which is so far beyond what I ever imagined for a dead and dying mall its not even funny.

Sigh.

As an academic with a lot of years under my belt I can imagine your complaint, dear reader. You are thinking "correlation is not causation", and that's true. Just the fact that OakRidge is glomming on to the side of that taxpayer funded subway doesn't mean that the subway caused Oakridge to become a playground for the 1 percent. It might have happened without the subway. That's not proof! (btw, I hope you can at least partly understand my insanity now as at least partly caused by too many decades in academia). No its not proof I admit, and as futile as it may be I will try to provide more data to prove that subways cause unaffordable housing.

Let us return to consider the Broadway extension, and to be perfectly honest I have to here admit admit that I lied when I said that Vancouver taxpayers would alone be on the hook for paying the 4 billion to extend the Broadway Subway out to UBC. They won't. The stars are all aligning for the extension to be mostly paid for by the purchasers of new condos between Arbutus Street and UBC. UBC is already planning to build millions of square feet of new market condominiums at the south end of campus while another consortium is planning millions more at the Jericho lands. The Musqueam are already adding over a 750,00 square feet at the edge of University Village on University Boulevard and have taken over the UBC Golf Course which will likely provide space for millions more at some future date. Taken all together and assuming densities will be close to the over 6 FSR (higher than west End Densities) what is already being built, and since Jericho, UBC, and the UBC golf course together have at least 20 times more acres of potential sites than the University Village site, we can be looking at over 15 million square feet of condo space. If all that sold at the same $2,000 per square foot price as Oakridge, you are looking at a cash flow of 30 billion dollars. I know that the cost to construct a typical high rise recently at UBC Orchard Commons was $185/sq foot so building all that will only cost 2.8 billion. Since all the land is mostly "free" (owned by UBC, Federal Gov. or First Nations) then the net is over 25 billion. So between these entities they can certainly afford to combine and chip in a modest 4 billion to get the subway built.

But money being what it is and as we all know you can never have too much money, why would they bother chipping in? What's making me crazy is that I know something most people don't. There is already head nodding agreement that these entities will all chip in, because they know chipping in for the subway is the secret sauce to getting the lucrative density they want approved. The subway represents a modest give back to the community that unlocks all this density potential. There is simply no way that you can capitalize on this massive condo play unless there is a subway.

So what do I have against all this housing and a free subway? Its that the whole pyramid scheme is premised on getting that 2,000 bucks a square foot that means that whole damned world out there is only for the one percent and the subway has no other vital purpose other than to be the umbilicus breathing life into this play. It's that it cements in place Vancouver's role as the most unequal city on this side of the planet and that makes me crazy.

You see the only way those numbers work out in a way that gladdens the hearts of the profit minded is precisely because these condos will only be affordable to the one percent.

It's not rational to build at a lower density and its not rational to sell at a lower price and its not rational to build all this without the subway!

And in the end it is how rational all this is that has made me completely insane!

Help me!

# ¿ Jan 7, 2019 04:36

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

sitchensis posted:

I hate this loving city.

Don't worry, it hates you too.

# ¿ May 6, 2020 04:20

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

Purgatory Glory posted:

Sell the house, while you're still above water.

but my investment!!!!

# ¿ Sep 11, 2020 05:52

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

Square Peg posted:

The issue is commoditization.

correct. this is 100% the problem.

attempting to resolve housing affordability by increasing the development potential of a property will only benefit existing land owners (see: speculators). it is the land owner (who often has sat on the property for decades), not the developer, who will often have the greatest capture in value compared to everyone else.

and i've really enjoyed the shittery on accessory dwelling units in SFDs over the past little while in this thread - it's 66% of the entire rental housing market in BC. super cool.

you want to know what the future of housing will look like in the lower mainland? in the absence of provincial and federal support, it's going to take the form of multi-unit residential developments (apartments, townhouses, etc) with built-in lock-off suites (accessory dwelling units). two dwelling units under the same strata lot (one principal, one accessory). they will become the new multi-generational homes of the future.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2020 03:53

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

Lead out in cuffs posted:

Could you elaborate on this a bit? It's a bit difficult to imagine how a 400sqft condo can have a basement suite.

sure thing, dude

in the apartment example, a lock-off suite is effectively a secondary dwelling unit that falls under the same strata lot as the principal dwelling. you could rent it out, you could move your elders into there, etc). here's an image that shows what one configuration could look like below.

edit: the image below depicts a side-by-side example that you would typically see on a floor plan. it looks like two dwelling units, but could only be sold under one title (good luck amending the strata plan to sell off that unit future realtors l o l).

double edit: the bc building code was recently amended earlier this year to allow secondary suites in duplexes, triplexes, and townhouses, which is hella cool if you ask me

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Sep 21, 2020

# ¿ Sep 21, 2020 05:01

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

Claes Oldenburger posted:

No kidding. We could turn everything south of king ed into 3 story 700sqf+ low rise apartments and more or less solve this crisis (if these apartments were rent controlled and owned by the govt), without having to resort to people living in a closet.

that's the rub, isn't it.

edit: hulchanski pretty much outlines what needs to be done on the most basic level:

quote:

Today, Canada has the most private-sector-dominated, market-based housing system of any Western nation (including the United States, where intervention on behalf of homeowners is extensive) and the smallest social housing sector of any major Western nation (except for the United States). Canada spends only about one percent of its budget on programs and subsidies for all the social housing ever built across the country (about half a million units).

Addressing the current situation would require five types of programs:

- First, in social housing supply, capital subsidies are required to bring down the overall rent levels.
- Second, rent supplements can make housing affordable for very low-income households.
- The other three programs would address the housing needs of people requiring supportive housing, the rehabilitation of ageing housing, and assistance for people who are homeless.

These five programs would make great progress in alleviating the more severe aspects of Canada�s housing problem, yet they would likely require only about another one percent of annual federal spending.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Sep 21, 2020

# ¿ Sep 21, 2020 17:55

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

Femtosecond posted:

lmao this council will never be able to get anything done. Everything is delayed endlessly with the hope that the much anticipated city plan will somehow fix everything, as if it won't be incredibly watered down and used to block any and all change.

ann mcafee ruefully reminisces over CityPlan

# ¿ Oct 1, 2020 03:46

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

cross-posting from doomsday economics thread

Cold on a Cob posted:

holy poo poo

https://twitter.com/BenRabidoux/status/1316735123627429889?s=20

# ¿ Oct 15, 2020 19:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 12:27

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

HookShot posted:

No one, literally no one, legitimately has that much cash just lying around.

look i just had a hankering that only a casino could satisfy, okay?

just a good time had by all

# ¿ Oct 30, 2020 05:51

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

«‹›7 »