- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
I dunno why you are all so wrapped in colonialist or YIMBY stuff. The original article doesn't seem to make reference to any of this. It's an issue of meeting current "sustainability" standards versus "genuine" heritage representation.
I don't know why YIMBY people would be against heritage preservation - the original tweet is just fundamentally misguided. Heritage powers in land use planning and development are some of the most expansive in British Columbia. A Heritage Revitalization Agreement basically lets you do anything you want, except change an OCP. Vancouver and New Westminster even have heritage density transfer banks, that you lets you "preserve in place" and donate the excess density elsewhere nearby.
If the signs on construction sites and the official policies created by the city of Vancouver are anything to go by, many of the city’s older houses are being lovingly renovated and restored to enhance their historic character.
But that’s not true, many experienced developers and builders say.
The reality is that many of those restored homes are, in effect, new houses that merely simulate the shape and look of the old ones, say those who are struggling to reconcile the conflicting city goals that have led to this situation.
And, as a result, two benefits that city policies have identified as part of the push to save older homes – preventing a lot of building waste from going to landfills and providing affordable housing – are not being achieved.
That’s because the city government is trying to do two things at once: save heritage houses and meet new environmental standards.
So it has adopted programs that encourage home owners to preserve Vancouver’s diminishing stock of houses built before 1940. But its building code and other measures require new and even renovated houses to meet 21st-century standards for energy efficiency, accessibility and safety.
This can mean that, by the time the work is finished, the early-20th-century beams may be all that remains of the original house, according to many who work in the field.
“In a lot of our situations, we’re being pulled in two directions, and preserving the heritage building becomes unfeasible,” said Henri Belisle, the president of Burnaby-based TQ Construction, which does renovation and restoration work in the region. “I do feel like the city’s official motivations are good, but the applications tend to be in conflict.”
“It’s just a pretend restoration,” said Elton Donald, a partner at Kerr Construction and Design, a 30-year-old Vancouver company that specializes in new custom homes and renovations. “The policy becomes so onerous that it becomes impossible to retain much.”
And Bryn Davidson, a Vancouver builder of laneway homes and passive houses (which are designed to use as little energy as possible for heating and cooling), said the system caters to an increasingly outmoded idea of white settler culture.
“It’s about preserving the colonial character of neighbourhoods. It’s just sort of an aesthetic exercise. It’s not really a housing strategy,” he said.
Even though the city says the purpose of the character-home preservation policies is to reduce the amount of building material going to landfills, many renovations now produce as much waste as demolitions.
Smaller, partial renovations can also be affected, but the contradictions are the most glaring when the owner of a pre-1940s home is building an infill house.
A city policy initiated in 2017 allows homeowners to build laneway-type infill housing on their lots if they preserve the existing pre-1940s house. But if they want to sell the infill housing through a strata arrangement, the main house has to be upgraded to the current building standards.
(Stratification is a real estate mechanism that involves selling parts of properties separately, whether condos or laneway houses, that are on a common piece of land, without a subdivision.)
The idea of allowing the infills was to provide lower-cost housing in Vancouver’s often out-of-reach single-family neighbourhoods.
But because the cost of upgrading the pre-1940s house to 2020 standards is so high, many owners choose not to add laneway houses, or build them as rentals to avoid having to upgrade the main house.
As a result, it is more often professional builders who redevelop such properties and, to compensate for the high cost of renovating the older house, the price of the infill homes can be the same as every other form of new housing.
Several builders contacted by The Globe and Mail say the conflicting policies mean many houses end up as nothing more than general replicas of older buildings.
Builders seldom raise the topic publicly.
They told The Globe they understand and admire the city’s effort to preserve houses and to emphasize energy efficiency, even if trying to do both is often nightmarish.
At least one says that, as problematic as the policy encouraging the retention of character-houses might be, it provides one crucial benefit – more housing in neighbourhoods that usually oppose any new building that isn’t a single-family home.
“It’s the only program that allows densification without controversy,” said Marianne Amodio, an award-winning architect who has worked on heritage buildings that include the recently renovated Hollywood Theatre.
The conflict between heritage and modern standards comes up in any renovation of an older home. Even a small alteration to a space can trigger a requirement to upgrade a whole room or floor, which can force the owners to toss out mouldings, casings, doors, stairs and more.
“We have to do everything or nothing in a room,” Mr. Belisle said.
But the conflict is the most acute when the owner hopes to stratify and sell.
The retention policy applies to the standard residential zones that cover most of Vancouver, called RS-1, and the specialized zones in older areas such as Mount Pleasant, Kitsilano, Strathcona and Grandview-Woodlands that have many pre-1940s homes.
City staff developed the incentive program after years of objections from heritage advocates – and many residents of the west-side neighbourhoods that are among the city’s most expensive – over the rate of demolition in the past 20 years. Those advocates called the demolitions an environmental disaster because thousands of tonnes of still-good building material was thrown out.
But under the new building code, original stairs, doors, lighting, door handles and other fixtures can’t be retained.
Doors in older homes are typically 28 inches wide. The new requirement is 30 inches. Antique doorknobs have to be replaced by handles for accessibility. Many older houses must have new insulation if the siding is removed, which can reduce the size of the rooms.
The cost of the renovation can run from $600,000 to $1-million, builders say.
Between that and the approximately $500,000 cost of building the new infill – along with the reduction in value of the main house because it no longer has as much land once a lot has been stratified – builders say a homeowner has little incentive to go that route.
Mr. Donald said a west-side resident recently enquired about constructing an infill but, when she found out how much it would cost and how little of her main house would remain, she backed off.
“You can’t sell the infill for enough to cover the costs,” he said. And she did not want to get rid of the old features of her house.
City officials quietly acknowledged the difficulties in a memo in June, 2019, and a briefing this summer to city councillors. In both, it was clear staff were concerned about why more people were not taking advantage of the program and why so little was being retained during renovations.
“Character-home projects provide a good model for the addition of housing choice in neighbourhoods,” the memo said. “The outcomes are generally supported as a good fit with existing low-density neighbourhoods. “However, the level of building retention achieved is low due to building code requirements and market expectations.”
The city plans to evaluate how much is retained in character-home renovations, but to keep the existing policy. (The memo is the only response from the city that was provided to The Globe on this topic.)
Builders themselves don’t always agree on how to improve the situation.
Mike Bruce has renovated eight older houses around Vancouver, recently turning two in Mount Pleasant into three stratified units apiece: two in the original older house and an infill “coach house” in each case.
He retained little of the original houses beyond the studs.
“You get the old frame, you keep the shape of it, you can’t go outside that, and you keep the roofline and then essentially you build a new home around that,” Mr. Bruce said, standing in the yard of the 1910 Massey House, a former rental that he rebuilt into a side-by-side duplex out of the main house and a coach house in the back, each selling this year for about $1-million or more.
He said some buyers like the look of heritage but not the inconvenience. At one of the recent re-developments, he retrieved and reinstalled the old porch pillars that had been thrown into the basement, along with one banister post. But he did that out of personal interest, not because of any requirement.
But another builder thinks the city should let owners forgo the full renovation and still build infill if that’s what they want. For those, says Bryn Davidson, only cosmetic changes should be required on the main house to keep the cost of the new homes within reach.
“As soon as you trigger the upgrade, it’s just luxury.”
Hubbert fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Dec 24, 2020
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 05:03
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2024 07:01
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
These days there is no such thing. All new condos are basically hot garbage with shiny stainless steel appliances.
He's better off buying a unit in an older building that's already had its major repairs accounted for.
or rent lol
This cannot be emphasized enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2021 01:15
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
There's shitloads of street parking in this area and a parking lot at the childcare centre as well and it has great public transit all over. That guy in the video is a loving idiot and so are you.
Surface parking lots are the highest and best possible use of any property, no matter its location. This is what I've learned through extensive public engagement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2021 23:06
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
Ah, but what if it CAN go on forever?
and it will
canada has nothing else going for it any more, except as a place for the wealthy looking to hedge their bets against climate change
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 17:31
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
It's more complex than that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 23:27
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
Canadians can be grateful Ottawa’s parliamentary secretary for housing isn’t afraid of saying what’s on his mind in front of a microphone.
Liberal apparatchiks must be going squirrely after loquacious MP Adam Vaughan inadvertently outed what has been the party’s real scheme on housing for six years — pushing a policy that only worsens extreme unaffordability in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.
Vaughan, who is also the Liberal MP for Spadina–Fort York, acknowledged in a rare display of federal government candor that Canada has become “a very safe market for foreign investment.”
But, Vaughan added, it is “not a great market for Canadians looking for choices around housing.”
Without blinking, Vaughan went on to tell TV Ontario host Steve Paikin that attracting foreign capital is the key to building more housing supply in Canada.
“We have a very good system of foreign investment creating a lot of new housing in Canada as we add immigrants and grow the population,” said Vaughan, a former Toronto city councillor who is now parliamentary secretary for families, children, social development and housing.
Whatever is going on in Vaughn’s heart, the reality is the Liberals’ housing strategy is privileging foreign investors and directing billions to Canada’s politically powerful development lobby at the same time it’s drastically undermining local families who have been waiting for an opening into owning.
Ron Butler, a prominent Canadian mortgage provider and real-estate analyst, says a few housing-policy observers have been complaining about this unspoken Liberal policy for years. Developers and their allies have often shut them down by labelling them xenophobic.
“The influx of foreign money started small, then grew. At first the government denied it, calling anyone who pointed it out as racist. By the time it was ridiculously obvious, it was easier to turn it into a policy,” said Butler, who has been spoken highly of by Evan Siddall, who was until recently head of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Fuelled by the way Ottawa has been printing money, handing out pandemic benefits at a globally record rate and offering extremely low interest rates, house prices in Greater Toronto, Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley have gone up 20 to 25 per cent since COVID-19 hit a year ago.
Last fall, Vancouver ranked as the second most unaffordable city out of 100 major metropolises in the English-speaking world and beyond, according to Demographia. Toronto is fifth worst.
Given the parliamentary secretary’s talkative frame of mind during his extended interview, Vaughan did express concern for renters who want to get into what he called middle-class security through owning a home.
Article content
But it seemed Vaughan, and by extension the minister responsible for housing, Jean-Yves Duclos, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself, are far more worried about not alienating those who already own homes.
Vaughan argued it would be terrible to bring in any policy that could cause current homeowners to see “ten per cent of the equity in their home suddenly disappear overnight.”
Host Paikin couldn’t hide his shock at Vaughan’s priorities, as he tried to explain people outside the market need to see drops of 20 to 30 per cent.
Real-estate analyst John Pasalis said Vaughan’s admission that Canada’s housing market better serves foreign investors than locals flows from Ottawa’s own inflationary policies, which are designed to push housing prices higher to drive the economy.
When Vaughan admitted that Canada’s housing market is “driven by speculation” and that “it gets very tricky to curb speculation,” Pasalis said the housing secretary was ignoring what other countries have already done.
“I really don’t know what to say when our federal government admits that it has made housing in Canada better for foreign investors than for Canadians. Who are they serving? Clearly not Canadians,” said Pasalis, who has also recently praised by Siddall.
To take just one regional example, the price of a typical house on Vancouver’s west side has soared by more than $300,000 since early last year, largely due to Ottawa’s policies. The average price is $3.3 million.
Realtor David Hutchinson said high-end homes “are completely out of reach of even some of the highest paid locals on the west side of Vancouver,” where SFU housing analyst Andy Yan has said the only ones who can afford to buy are families with access to offshore wealth.
“I currently have four sets of buyers — three of them are highly paid professional couples and one is a local business owner, all with very good incomes — and these prices are even out of reach for them. Two of these have given up looking at all,” Hutchinson said.
It’s hard to figure out whether money going into Vancouver housing is foreign-sourced or not, Hutchinson said, especially since a buyer who is not a citizen, but is simply in Canada on permanent resident status, is not subject to B.C.’s 20 per cent foreign-buyers tax. “And foreign investors can easily purchase through a permanent resident.”
It’s important to keep in mind SFU policy analyst Josh Gordon’s definition of foreign ownership, which is “housing purchased primarily with income or wealth earned abroad and not taxed as income in Canada.” Gordon’s recent peer-reviewed paper says lack of connection between soaring housing prices and tepid local wages in Metro Vancouver is caused in large part by hidden foreign ownership.
The B.C. NDP have attempted to deal with foreign ownership by bringing in a non-resident buyers tax and the vacancy and speculation tax, which targets so-called ‘satellite” families in which the breadwinner earns most of their money outside Canada. They’re better than nothing, even with this current pandemic run-up in prices.
But don’t expect anything at all from the federal Liberals. Trudeau, during a 2019 campaign stop in B.C., promised to bring in a one per cent tax on all property purchases by “non-resident, non-Canadian” buyers. But not a peep has been raised since then about Trudeau’s promise to “ensure foreign speculation doesn’t make housing less affordable for Canadians.”
For that matter, we’re not getting policy updates on a similar campaign promise by the NDP’s Jagmeet Singh, who also two years ago said he wants to impose a nationwide 15 per cent tax on foreign ownership.
Many North Americans these days applaud New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for her leadership, including on housing. She banned foreign ownership in 2018. And, to reduce speculation, she has cut immigration and required new home buyers to have large down payments.
Ardern is a politician who has shown there are many things governments can do to rein in speculation in housing, particularly for young people. All it requires is the will. Hubbert fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Apr 16, 2021
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2021 03:23
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
Yeah.
I think a few things that often get forgotten are:
1) Foreign speculation on Canadian housing isn't just from China. Rich assholes from the USA and Europe have been doing this literally since Vancouver was founded. But the rich Chinese assholes are a visible minority, so they do attract actual racism, which then gives real estate agents the cover to call out anyone talking about foreign speculation as racist.
2) A bunch of rich assholes have basically bought citizenship through various immigration programs. They then buy a bunch of property, but don't bother to even live in Canada. They do not get counted in foreign ownership stats. They also don't get taxed by foreign ownership taxes, although they may fall afoul of vacancy taxes and the like.
3) As others have noted, foreign real estate speculation is mostly being done through foreign investment in REITs and their ilk now anyway.
4) We're only barely beginning to have laws requiring disclosure of beneficial ownership, so most of the degree of foreign ownership of Canadian real estate is still heavily obfuscated.
But good luck getting any of that nuance into the mainstream political discourse.
Personally, I'm more worried about the fact that the Liberal party is now explicit about their desire to acquire foreign investment over the needs of its voting population.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2021 22:22
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
westbank taking an active lead in helping canadians get more underwater mortgages
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2021 05:27
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
How about this: immigration fueled by money not earned in the Canadian marketplace distorts housing prices. Therefore, immigration, amongst other factors, should be managed such that prices are mitigated and remain connected to cost of living for people who work for their living.
When people like you dog whistle racism anytime this is brought up, you crush discourse for reasonable people who aren’t opposed to people, but to the distorting effects of a global economic system that fulminates rampant inequality. Our leaders have allowed, indeed encouraged this approach because our own productivity is a joke and if we weren’t importing foreign wealth and building a real estate economy, our standard of living would be far worse than it actually is.
in fact, this was an incredible effective tactic right up until andy yan blew the topic right open with his data and vancouver's previous mayor called his academic findings racist
edit: i mean, gently caress, it's been informally recognized that vancouver / lower mainland real estate is a more popular investment than gold for the global elite
Hubbert fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Apr 17, 2021
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2021 20:13
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
Canadian Debt Thread: Not to be arrogant but I'm not unemployed
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2021 23:21
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
Now that toxic foreign demand has been dealt with, demand siders are finally realizing that the speculation is coming from inside the house
Surprising piece of data here that most secondary home owners own another detached house. That really goes against the narrative that condos are bought by investors, which uh Yan literally cites in this article. Yan your data contradicts what you're saying!
But seriously wtf is Yan smoking here when he starts to go off on filter theory. Filter theory is about renters moving to new properties that better fit their needs. Whoever owns the unit doesn't matter? Maybe Yan thinks it does, that renters only upgrade when they can buy a condo but, no renters will also move to a new rental too (rare as that may be in a rent controlled environment when that move assuredly means paying more).
What I think this data does show though is that first time homebuyers have competition in the market. If government is really interested in making things cheaper for FT home buyers they could discourage secondary home investment.
YIMBYs will say, "what's the problem here, this investment creates much needed rental!" though if measures were taken to make condo speculation a lousy asset class, rentals will be built another way regardless. We'd simply see more corporate/pension owned purpose built rental. IMO we've already been seeing that trend. It makes sense since rental is kind of a lousy investment, but pensions are just trying to do better than government bonds.
Interesting read! Thank you for sharing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 21:48
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
Maybe the reason we have a housing crisis is because we have a bunch of dorks with a Masters of Urban Planning that need to stop everything to weigh in on balcony handrails and then the master arborist needs have their moment in the sun to flex their Landscape Architecture degree.
unironically agreed
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 06:51
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
thread anthem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE3KPWwiRz8
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2021 04:45
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
Point 10 gets into the huge implications of this, which is that if cities want good amenities well they need to raise property taxes. (An alternative explanation is that the document is suggesting that we need new land value taxes on sale in addition to property taxes).
By leveraging CACs cities have effectively been able to give their residents amenities beyond what they're actually paying for. If CACs are scaled back by new legislation, cities will have to make up the shortfall with higher property taxes, or scale back amenities. The troubling thing is that it's all too easy for politicians to ride a promise of low taxes! into power and this means a huge reduction of amenities. Maybe the province will pick up the slack and fund these amenities, such as social housing, instead, but lol probably not.
the correct way forward for BC municipalities to build "affordable" housing is to use existing permissions in the LGA, by either:
(1) pre-zoning land with specific density bonusing regulations, which essentially is the legal means of collecting amenities from developers in exchange for density; or
(2) using the new tenure zoning rules to pre-zone single-family residential neighbourhoods (ok single-family neighbourhoods, you can either have a fee-simple SFD lot or rental-only multi-family residential)
except none of that is going to happen, because land use planning is the biggest and most influential thing that Council gets to do (plus the public would be furious at not having their say), so lmao at the idea that they'd ever relinquish this power
Hubbert fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jun 21, 2021
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2021 16:49
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
Yeah if the city did this then the city planners wouldn't be able to stop everything because they have opinions about the patio rail design and soffit colours so we all know that's untenable.
except the city planners would still be able to do that, because the development permit process would remain unaffected
and don't forget the advisory planning commissions and advisory design panels who can pretty much do the same thing too
l o l
another edit: thanks for sharing the full report though
Hubbert fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 21, 2021
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2021 16:57
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
I think we need to hang landlords from their balconies.
I don't think the strata bylaws allow that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2021 03:40
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dip...ampaign=3146957
quote:
Canada tax agency reveals secret study linking home prices to millionaire migration, five years after freedom-of-information request
- The 1996 study found rich migrants made more than 90 per cent of luxury purchases in two Vancouver municipalities while declaring refugee-level incomes
- A freedom-of-information expert said the study could have swayed the city’s notoriously unaffordable housing market, and delaying its release was a ‘tragedy’
l o l
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2021 02:20
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2021 16:45
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
So rather than create laws and taxes that diminish speculation and land value the solution is to throw a fresh chord of dry lumber on that forest fire to burn up all that oxygen faster.
Increasing housing supply is the only pareto-efficient approach that senior levels of government can take without actually doing anything truly helpful (see: a social housing regime), so they can shift all blame to the provinces and to local governments lmfao.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2021 17:22
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
am I misunderstanding floor space ratio? a 4 floor apartment with a few feet setback seems like it should be easy to reach 2.50, plenty of buildings like that in mount pleasant with underground parking. or does parking apply in some way I'm misunderstanding?
You'd be surprised.
FSR exclusions in Vancouver depend on the zoning district, rather than building it into the definition, so it'll be specific from site-to-site (and therefore impossible to assess without a big deep dive into their CD-1 zoning bylaw regime which sucks).
A four storey building likely wouldn't be able to fully capture 2.5 FSR after required road dedications (including lanes), setbacks, lot coverage, and height. We also have to understand that developers are primarily concerned with *efficient* space, so things like lobbies or hallways can take away from saleable FSR. Can't sell a hallway, after all.
There's also another hard artificial limit - the actual size of the site. While a tower can have dwelling units all around an elevator core on a relatively small site, a typical low slab apartment can only "double load" a corridor (only "two" dwelling units on each side of any given point in a hallway). This is usually not a problem elsewhere in the world, where land is not the premium expense and you can build courtyard style bungalows or apartments - but here in Vancouver, we're very much limited in terms of "usable" lands to actually build the building. A developer can't sink all of their money into making individual land owners rich, so they have to deal with constrained lot sizes vs. a generous FSR with other physical dimension limitations.
...
If you actually want to fix the problem at a municipal level (build supply!!!! lol!!!!), you have to "prezone" and "downzone" the redevelopment potential of land in certain circumstances. You need to find a way to lower the cost of that land and its redevelopment potential, which is just completely unacceptable to the landowning public.
Now that municipalities in BC can actually zone residential tenure (ownership vs. rental), none of them are using this tool to its full potential. if a City truly wanted to make a difference, it would pre-zone SFH lands to either allow (1) an SFD on fee-simple land, or (2) enable multi-unit residential (strata-titled) under a deliberately lower FSR than usual, and (3) enable multi-unit residential (rental - and especially non-market rental) at a deliberately higher FSR to "push down" the relative cost of land.
Really glad that we turned housing into a investment commodity, good job us.
Hubbert fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Nov 11, 2021
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2021 03:11
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
not only is housing a financial instrument. we convinced everyone that a lovely negative income illiquid investment is good
don't forget the complete loving lack of federal support making sure that we have no other choice but to participate in this lovely rear end house of cards lmfao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE3KPWwiRz8
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2021 03:34
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
and here i am reading the Canadian Debt Thread telling me it's all because supply is too low
have i been lied to?????????????
Number must go up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2021 04:26
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
no you see it's supply and
yes i thought it was time to blow up the nuclear hot YIMBY takes and actually talk about housing policy more generally
you have the right to buy housing in canada, nothing more
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2021 04:29
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
anyways supply really is a problem and we should really be pre-zoning everything IMMEDIATELY
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2021 06:40
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
hulchanski is nimby
ok lets actually look at the article together
quote:
Thousands of residents in False Creek South living in multi-family buildings on land owned by the City of Vancouver have been facing uncertainty for years over the question of whether their long-term leases will be renewed.
But a city councillor now wants that changed much sooner than later.
If approved, a motion by TEAM councillor Colleen Hardwick would direct city staff to “immediately” proceed with lease extensions for all strata leaseholds and then engage in lease renewal negotiations, as well as lease renewal for all co-op leaseholds.
Hardwick’s motion also seeks to have existing residents be guaranteed security of tenure at a rate affordable to them. She writes that lease renewal policy considerations should be undertaken in public.
False Creek South stretches from east of the Burrard Street Bridge to west of the Cambie Street Bridge. The municipal government’s 80 acres of False Creek South contains about 1,800 homes built in the 1970s and early 1980s. This includes six co-ops totalling 573 homes, four market rental buildings totalling 124 homes, six non-profit rental buildings totalling 455 homes, and 13 strata buildings totalling 669 homes.
An additional 1,354 homes are on land owned by the private sector or other levels of government.
All of the properties on city-owned land are on 60-year leases, set to expire over the next 15 to 25 years — between 2036 and 2046.
“As leases have not yet been negotiated, existing residents are experiencing significant stress after more than a decade of meetings with the City,” reads the motion.
“Residents have nonetheless expressed support in collaborative community planning to densify their neighbourhood and further diversify the social mix to include more youth, Indigenous people, recent immigrants and a ‘campus of care’ with supportive housing for seniors and people who have experienced homelessness.”
This approach, such as “collaborative community planning to densify” and a “campus of care,” are references to a 2019 vision made by the False Creek South Neighbourhood Association (FCSNA) that calls for one million sq ft of new additional floor area for housing and commercial space, including a health services hub for seniors on the current site of False Creek Public Tennis Club. FCSNA’s resident-driven concept would largely be achieved through infill development, while retaining existing buildings through new long-term leases.
As well, Hardwick is asking city staff to conduct False Creek South’s community planning in a manner that is “public, outside the frame of confidentiality, in full collaboration with existing residents and other interest groups, by the City Planning Department, using well-established techniques for neighbourhood planning and public engagement.”
In February 2021, city staff conducted a public consultation on the future of False Creek South and the possibility of providing additional affordable homes and commercial development to foster the Metro Core’s economy. At the time, it was stated that the engagement was being conducted from the municipal government’s landowner perspective — connected but independent from the city’s False Creek South neighbourhood planning program, which was put on hold in 2018.
The city’s properties in False Creek South are under the municipal government’s Property Endowment Fund (PEF), which is managed separately from other city properties for investment purposes. The City of Vancouver owns roughly 700 properties under the PEF across the city, with a combined value of about $5.7 billion, as of 2018.
The False Creek South lands are some of the city’s most valuable properties under the PEF.
City council is scheduled to deliberate Hardwick’s motion as early as Tuesday, October 5. Hubbert fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Nov 11, 2021
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2021 16:47
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
Always easy to snipe at the sidelines at blame the feds for lack of funding, but we just had a federal election and nothing changed. What now? Pragmatic politicians would move on and try to find some way to move forward and build housing for working people, but all these left nimbys are old and comfortably housed so neither they nor anyone they know are actually negatively impacted by the status quo of doing nothing. So they continue on with only fruitless critique being their contribution.
if you don't like it, run for Council and make it happen
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2021 20:49
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
we can all come together and blame every single level of government and point fingers at anyone we think is responsible too
and nothing would change still
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2021 22:53
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
Hey, Femtosecond.
Check this out.
B.C. minister hints at withholding funding to municipalities who thwart affordable housing proposals
B.C. Housing Minister David Eby is threatening to bring a financial hammer down on municipalities that do not cooperate in addressing the province’s housing affordability crisis.
Eby told a conference on affordable housing on Monday that his government “could withhold funding for programs if a municipality refuses to work on the supply challenge.”
He suggested he might use that stick with municipalities that refuse to acknowledge there is a housing supply problem that needs to be addressed.
Housing advocates and developers have said drawn-out municipal rezoning processes add more costs to developments, which makes them less affordable.
Municipalities have been told by the province they must submit a housing needs report by April 2021, outlining how much supply is needed now and in the future, based on expected growth. Eby suggested some communities have refused to acknowledge a crisis in housing supply.
“It’s fine to say that you are not interested in bringing more people into your community, but when you have thousands of people arriving in your community, through federal immigration policies and in-migration from other provinces, you need to match your official community plan with growth and with zoning,” said Eby.
The province set aside $5 million to assist municipalities to create their housing needs reports, but the minister did not confirm whether that was the funding that could be held back if municipalities thwart measures to create affordable or supportive housing.
Eby said a report commissioned by the provincial and federal governments called “Opening Doors” suggested that holding back funding could be an option if the cooperative approach does not work.
“It was outlined to us as a potential option, but it is not something that we are actively doing,” he said.
Eby said he was “frustrated” that a housing project in Surrey — a six-storey, 91-unit building to allow people with disabilities to live independently — failed after complaints by neighbours at a public hearing.
“Supporting adults with disabilities to have independent housing and having an independent life, you would think this would be a no-brainer,” he said. “It’s an example of where we’ve got the money, we’ve got the developer, we’ve got the non-profit to build it, but the municipality has acted as a gatekeeper in preventing it from being built.”
The Union of B.C. Municipalities did not respond to a question about Eby’s threat, but president Laurey-Anne Roodenburg, said in a written statement that about 90 per cent of municipalities are working with the province already on housing affordability.
“Local governments have demonstrated a high level of engagement with this provincial initiative,” she wrote, “with well over 90 per cent having reports completed or underway. Housing affordability and attainability is a challenge for communities throughout B.C., and local governments have welcomed provincial support for improved data on local needs.”
In an effort to speed up municipal approval processes, and avoid the “not-in-my-backyard” backlash faced by municipalities when considering higher density projects, the province introduced legislation last month that would allow housing projects to be approved without going to a public hearing, if it matches the official community plan. However, a municipality can order a public hearing if it believes it is in the public interest.
Eby has also used provincial powers to override municipal objections to some of his government’s supportive housing projects.
On Friday, the province announced its decision to move residents of a temporary housing unit on Royal Crescent by building a permanent, 52-unit housing facility without the approval of Maple Ridge council. The province said it was accelerating the project straight to construction under the legal authority it says gives the province the right to do so.
In March, the B.C. government used its legal authority to override the wishes of Penticton city council in keeping a homeless shelter open. The City of Penticton is challenging the province’s powers to do so in a suit in B.C. Supreme Court.
B.C.’s 10-year housing plan promises $7 billion dollars to build 114,000 units that include supportive housing for those experiencing homelessness or addiction, social housing initiatives directed at Indigenous populations, people with disabilities, women escaping domestic violence, and housing based on income levels, under-market priced units and what are called “off-market units” which includes housing run by co-ops and non-profit housing societies.
...
The proposed upcoming changes to the Local Government Act are pretty interesting. Here's the gist:
(1) Public hearings will no longer be required for rezonings consistent with an Official Community Plan (OCP). The LGA already allows a local government to waive the public hearing requirement in these same set of circumstances, but the new legislation no longer makes a standard obligatory requirement (if that makes sense).
(2) Certain variance powers (like reducing parking requirements, setback relaxations, etc) can FINALLY be delegated to staff rather than always having to go through Council.
Hubbert fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Nov 20, 2021
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2021 16:27
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
With the proposed changes it still seems pretty weak to me or rather it's oriented toward giving political cover to councils that want to build.
An anti-housing council could presumably continuously say that every and any rezoning requires a public hearing because it's "in the public interest."
I don't think it would give an elected Council any cover whatsoever. A Council must live with the consequences of not having a public hearing for controversial projects. It's a clever way for the Province to start exerting pressure, and it really should continue to do so.
Hubbert fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Nov 21, 2021
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2021 02:28
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
Just curious why the article says they needed reports submitted by April 2021? Is it an old article or a typo or am I missing something?
Looks like a typo.
Municipalities and regional districts in B.C. are required to complete housing needs reports by April 2022 and every five years thereafter. These reports will help local governments and the B.C. government better understand and respond to housing needs in communities throughout B.C.
It's a legislative requirement.
Hubbert fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Nov 21, 2021
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2021 02:56
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2021 18:06
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
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 Québec (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 Québec 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
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
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
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2024 07:01
|
|
- Hubbert
- Mar 25, 2007
-
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
|
at this point, i'm pretty sure the federal government will gladly allow inflation to go wildly out of control if only to allow housing prices to escalate to infinity and beyond
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 16:44
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 05:03
