Vancouver Rental Market Discussion

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You seem to be struggling once again in understanding different levels of government. The UDI letter was to The Provincial Government, not the City of Vancouver. They're referring to rental development across the whole of BC.

My mistake, thanks!

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Rent controls protect existing renters at the expense of people looking to rent, and landlords.

how? I'd rather have what we have than none like Alberta. Right now in Alberta, there is a movement to establish rent control.

In my building there are people who have been there for 25-30 years, so AFAIK rent in 1992 was about $600/mo. They are good tenants and have had increases more recently and new tenants will be looking will have to pay at the current market rate, such is life. I know a lot of the renters would be screwed if they had to move out now.

[misher]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

how? I'd rather have what we have than none like Alberta. Right now in Alberta, there is a movement to establish rent control.

In my building there are people who have been there for 25-30 years, so AFAIK rent in 1992 was about $600/mo. They are good tenants and have had increases more recently and new tenants will be looking will have to pay at the current market rate, such is life. I know a lot of the renters would be screwed if they had to move out now.

Controls are both good and bad. There should be a system to increase rents more than the allowed if mutually agreed upon. And if not, 3 months notice and free rent or some other kind of compensation in return for eviction. Without this system you have rennovictions and owners moving in because that’s the only easy way to kick out low paying tenants.

If a tenant pays less than market the owner gets screwed. It’s generally seen that owners can afford to get screwed. But we’re a free market so if owners get screwed they won’t own which is bad for our rental supply. So we need systems to protect tenants while not harming owners too badly. I feel like the current rules were improvised and did not seriously consider the viewpoints of both sides.

Politicians use stronger rent controls and tenancy laws to score big with current renters knowing that long term renters will suffer from them. It’s a bribe like offering to increase old age pensions, minimum wage or union pay.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Professional rental companies will always keep renting if there is demand. It's the amatuer property barons renting out one or two crappy condos that are the problem. As this study showed, many are too dumb to realize they're losing money and would have been better off investing it. They think they'll recoup their losses when they sell 'cuz property always goes up (until it doesn't).

Why are they "a problem" if they are giving renters a subsidy via their own financial illiteracy, as you claim?

FWIW many "new" landlords know full well they are taking a loss on their cashflow, which also reduces their tax burden, while they invest in that property for the long run. This is obviously not a well thought out plan in 2018, but 10 years ago it would look smart.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

how? I'd rather have what we have than none like Alberta. Right now in Alberta, there is a movement to establish rent control.

In my building there are people who have been there for 25-30 years, so AFAIK rent in 1992 was about $600/mo. They are good tenants and have had increases more recently and new tenants will be looking will have to pay at the current market rate, such is life. I know a lot of the renters would be screwed if they had to move out now.

Some academic studies:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...harm-than-good

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insight...winners-losers

I think your example shows the reason. Old tenants will cling to their places, new tenants pay elevated market rates. Rent controls discourage the building of new rental buildings, don't encourage landlords to make improvements, so you get stuck with a city that doesn't have enough rentals, and all the buildings are falling apart. See: NYC.

I don't disagree too much with our current system, though long term renters will still tend to make out better. Inflation +2% is fair, it only gets out of whack when the market changes rapidly, as it has been in recent years.

Renters have a ton of other protections in the law outside of rent increases as well.

[GenWhy?]

In talking with COPE people over 2 months, they've provided many "options" on the rent freeze. I asked them because it made no sense to me, personally, even as a renter, but mostly as someone who works in the industry. It also made no sense to me for this advocacy on their part due to it being a provincial matter (it's COPE's #1 policy).

COPE folks told me they're working out the solutions which could mean a freeze on only existing or older rentals. I didn't hear (from multiple people. Jean Swanson said they would work out details with the Province) a lot about the freeze impacting new rental, as I assume they know that would be a killer for new builds to mandate lower rents of all new rentals or they understand their base is not renting out and facing high increases if they're renting out $1,800 1-bedroom units.

I've only heard the rent freeze as a stop-gap-measure from almost every party, as a means to hold the line as both city and province find a solution. A kind of... no 4.5% increases during the next 4 years as we build solutions. However... many parties like COPE do not provide housing solutions at a municipal level for those above the $40k threshold, as far as I've asked and read. It's all very interesting.

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

In talking with COPE people over 2 months, they've provided many "options" on the rent freeze. I asked them because it made no sense to me, personally, even as a renter, but mostly as someone who works in the industry. It also made no sense to me for this advocacy on their part due to it being a provincial matter (it's COPE's #1 policy).

COPE folks told me they're working out the solutions which could mean a freeze on only existing or older rentals. I didn't hear (from multiple people. Jean Swanson said they would work out details with the Province) a lot about the freeze impacting new rental, as I assume they know that would be a killer for new builds to mandate lower rents of all new rentals or they understand their base is not renting out and facing high increases if they're renting out $1,800 1-bedroom units.

I've only heard the rent freeze as a stop-gap-measure from almost every party, as a means to hold the line as both city and province find a solution. A kind of... no 4.5% increases during the next 4 years as we build solutions. However... many parties like COPE do not provide housing solutions at a municipal level for those above the $40k threshold, as far as I've asked and read. It's all very interesting.

A restriction so that we only increase rent by inflation for 1-2 years I could see happening.

Asking for a complete rent freeze though means most rental Owners make 2.5% less each year which would be unfair. Expect to see rises in rennovictions as thats the easiest way to kick out tenants+expect the rental supply to tank as no one will step into it. Even discussing a rental freeze is going to scare away potential supply. I'm quite disappointed that they are not looking after their voters by doing so. More political turmoil=higher risk.

Countries that do price freezes on food end up with large black markets and failing businesses. It is generally a very short term solution that hurts long-term. The rental market is huge with many competitors so right now its at market price, its not like all Owners have colluded together to charge higher rents like certain gas companies.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why are they "a problem" if they are giving renters a subsidy via their own financial illiteracy, as you claim?

FWIW many "new" landlords know full well they are taking a loss on their cashflow, which also reduces their tax burden, while they invest in that property for the long run. This is obviously not a well thought out plan in 2018, but 10 years ago it would look smart.

I'll use the example of Klazu. Any smart landlord would know that to keep such a tenant is worth more than squeezing the maximum amount out of him with each yearly maximum increase. You hang on to good tenants.

A lot of these people are going to get burned as new rental comes on stream and pre-sale condo buyers realize they can't unload their spec units for a big profit as they expected.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'll use the example of Klazu. Any smart landlord would know that to keep such a tenant is worth more than squeezing the maximum amount out of him with each yearly maximum increase. You hang on to good tenants.

A lot of these people are going to get burned as new rental comes on stream and pre-sale condo buyers realize they can't unload their spec units for a big profit as they expected.

I don't get the problem. Those are both examples of market freedom, which I support in this instance. A ton of investors get burned during every downturn...

In the first example: you learn your lesson as a landlord eventually, or you don't and lose out.

[whatnext]

Vancouver rents are flatlining:

It appears Vancouver rent prices have finally stabilized, and like all real estate cycles, could be on a path towards declining. Recent data from local data scientist Louie Dinh of Quantitative Rhetoric, shows rent prices were essentially flat year-over-year in August...

...Flatlining rents and a rising number of listings should come as little surprise to those who are familiar with real estate cycles. In the early stages of the cycle vacancy rates tend to fall and rent prices increase. However, as the real estate market begins to slow, while simultaneously new construction ramps up (currently at all time highs in Vancouver), vacancy rates increase and rent prices begin to fall as an abundance of new supply overwhelms the market..

http://vancitycondoguide.com/rent-pr...wth-flatlined/

[GenWhy?]

^Probably because you can only charge so much for rent before people can't rent out what you're offering. I mean the maximum average rents to get a DCL waiver are $1,730 for East End and $1,903 for West End 1-bed units... which are about as high as we can go as smaller developers.

Our clients can't take the risk of basing proformas or being able to rent out almost $2,000 for a bachelor unit on the East end along Hastings, so hopefully land prices come down or height relaxations come into effect.

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

^Probably because you can only charge so much for rent before people can't rent out what you're offering. I mean the maximum average rents to get a DCL waiver are $1,730 for East End and $1,903 for West End 1-bed units... which are about as high as we can go as smaller developers.

Our clients can't take the risk of basing proformas or being able to rent out almost $2,000 for a bachelor unit on the East end along Hastings, so hopefully land prices come down or height relaxations come into effect.

Yeah when I first saw what the city considers as low-income rental, social housing, and below market rental I had to look twice. Anything over $1000 a month is not low income. Honestly feels like the city gave that title to rentals so they can brag that they created them but in reality no one in social/low income situations could afford them.

Hell they talk about affordable housing being those for households making incomes under $100,000 a year. Maybe government workers are making too much so that under 6 figures seems poor to them.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by misher

Yeah when I first saw what the city considers as low-income rental, social housing, and below market rental I had to look twice. Anything over $1000 a month is not low income. Honestly feels like the city gave that title to rentals so they can brag that they created them but in reality no one in social/low income situations could afford them.

Hell they talk about affordable housing being those for households making incomes under $100,000 a year. Maybe government workers are making too much so that under 6 figures seems poor to them.

The DCL Waiver rental rates are not for low income, social housing, or below market rental. The City has policy that helps direct and implement developers to build "moderate income households" ($40-80k) - so combined incomes - rental units, which is about $900-1000 for a studio, 1-Bedroom for $1,200, 2-Bedroom for $1,600, and a 3-Bedroom for $2,000. This is a new pilot called the Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program.

Social housing rates are determined by BC Housing and the DTES which we have projects in calls for 1/3 of each of the BC Housing rates (Welfare, HILs, and Affordable). "Low income" are usually tied in with social housing, due to the variety of rates social housing can provide and the structure they can follow with different models and clientele (micro-suites, or family units? etc.).

If you're referring to the Rental 100 program or the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy... then these are perhaps, yes poorly worded, but they were never intended for a single individual earning less than $50k... household incomes is another discussion. The two programs I mentioned above were to build new rental housing as there was little to no support from the Feds or Province and they were intended to boost new rental stock for those that could not afford to buy a home (the more affordable than a big mortgage, program).

Low income housing programs are in effect and separate from I think the programs you are mentioning. Many condo developments offer social housing, for instance. The DTES Plan mandates new condo projects have 20% of square footage be dedicated to social housing within the project. Which is very do-able, and we have 2 such projects under way.

[SpongeG]

West Vancouver proposes subsidized housing for working professionals

CTV Vancouver
Published Monday, October 1, 2018


Homes in West Vancouver have become so unaffordable that even those with middle class household incomes need subsidized housing to live in the municipality, according to recent proposal from council.

Officials are considering building 170 units of what it calls "workforce housing" designed for professionals such as teachers and first responders.

The units would be offered at 70 per cent of market value and are meant to give those who work the community the opportunity to also live there.

"No one that lives here works here and no one that works here lives here," said Mary-Ann Booth, a mayoral candidate who supports the project, adding that "$100,000 or $75,000 used to be enough to buy or even rent a place in West Vancouver and that is no longer the case."


Last month, councillors voted unanimously in favour of conducting public consultations on two designs for the project, which would be built in 2100 block of Gordon Avenue on land the municipality bought from Vancouver Coastal Health back in 2014.

According to Booth, a non-profit would be in charge of determining who is eligible for a subsidized unit.

The proposal comes as sky-rocketing prices drive young professionals out of West Vancouver, where seniors are now a growing part of the population.

...

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/west-vancouver...nals-1.4117341

[GenWhy?]

Double post but relevant and important for renters. The Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program project open houses are being hosted at the end of the month for those interested. About 20 projects will be hosting them soon and they are all over the city. Quite a few are around Renfrew Station and on East Hastings Street with will be good for both communities.


Some will not be until November or even December but some of these are great little rental projects while some are 14-storey towers.

[Changing City]

There's a big boost to rental housing across BC. BC Housing have announced the first set of projects to be funded by the Provincial Government as part of a commitment to spend nearly $1.9 billion over 10 years to develop 14,350 units of mixed-income, affordable rental housing for independent families and seniors.

Here are the Greater Vancouver projects, from the list of the initial 4,902 units in 72 schemes across BC.

Burnaby: 4 projects / 366 homes
• $14.2 million to Dania Society – 142 homes for seniors
• $6.1 million to L’Arche Foundation of Greater Vancouver – 61 homes for individuals, families and people with developmental disabilities
• $2.5 million to New Vista – 25 homes for families and seniors
• $13.8 million to SUCCESS – 138 homes for families and seniors
Coquitlam: 3 projects / 301 homes
• $7 million to Affordable Housing Societies – 70 homes for families
• $13.1 million to Community Land Trust – 131 co-op homes for families
• $10 million to Concert Real Estate – 100 homes for families, seniors and people with disabilities
Delta: 1 project / 54 homes
• $5.4 million to Affordable Housing Societies – 54 homes for families and seniors
Ladner: 1 project / 146 homes
• $14.6 million to Red Door Housing Society – 146 homes for seniors and families
Langley: 2 projects / 191 homes
• $9.7 million to Christian Life Assembly – 97 homes for families and seniors
• $9.4 million to Langley Lions Housing Society – 94 homes for seniors and people with disabilities
Maple Ridge: 1 project / 21 homes
• $2.1 million to Cythera Transition House Society – 21 homes for women and families recovering from violence
Surrey: 1 project / 87 homes
• $8.7 million to UNITI (Semiahmoo Housing Society, Peninsula Housing Society, the Semiahmoo Foundation) – 87 homes for families, seniors and people with disabilities
Tsawwassen: 1 project / 160 homes
• $16 million to KinVillage Association – 160 homes for seniors
North Vancouver: 2 projects / 196 homes
• $10.6 million to Kiwanis North Shore Housing Society – 106 homes for individuals and families
• $9 million to Sanford Affordable housing and Hollyburn Family Services Society – 90 homes for individuals and families
Vancouver: 10 projects / 1,101 homes
• $18.1 million to Brightside Homes – 181 homes for individuals, families and seniors
• $4 million to Lookout Housing and Health Society – 40 homes for individuals (2 projects)
• $9.9 million to M. Kopernik Foundation – 99 homes for seniors
• $10.2 million to New Chelsea Society – 102 homes for individuals, families and seniors
• $4.6 million to Salvation Army Harbour Light – 46 homes for individuals
• $3 million to the Kettle Society – 30 homes for seniors with mental health challenges
• $7.7 million to Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency – 77 homes for individuals, families and seniors
• $16.9 million to Vancouver Community Land Trust – 169 homes for people with HIV and AIDS and families and seniors
• $35.7 million to Vancouver Community Land Trust – 357 homes for individuals, families and seniors

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There's a big boost to rental housing across BC. BC Housing have announced the first set of projects to be funded by the Provincial Government as part of a commitment to spend nearly $1.9 billion over 10 years to develop 14,350 units of mixed-income, affordable rental housing for independent families and seniors.

Here are the Greater Vancouver projects, from the list of the initial 4,902 units in 72 schemes across BC.

Burnaby: 4 projects / 366 homes
• $14.2 million to Dania Society – 142 homes for seniors
• $6.1 million to L’Arche Foundation of Greater Vancouver – 61 homes for individuals, families and people with developmental disabilities
• $2.5 million to New Vista – 25 homes for families and seniors
• $13.8 million to SUCCESS – 138 homes for families and seniors
Coquitlam: 3 projects / 301 homes
• $7 million to Affordable Housing Societies – 70 homes for families
• $13.1 million to Community Land Trust – 131 co-op homes for families
• $10 million to Concert Real Estate – 100 homes for families, seniors and people with disabilities
Delta: 1 project / 54 homes
• $5.4 million to Affordable Housing Societies – 54 homes for families and seniors
Ladner: 1 project / 146 homes
• $14.6 million to Red Door Housing Society – 146 homes for seniors and families
Langley: 2 projects / 191 homes
• $9.7 million to Christian Life Assembly – 97 homes for families and seniors
• $9.4 million to Langley Lions Housing Society – 94 homes for seniors and people with disabilities
Maple Ridge: 1 project / 21 homes
• $2.1 million to Cythera Transition House Society – 21 homes for women and families recovering from violence
Surrey: 1 project / 87 homes
• $8.7 million to UNITI (Semiahmoo Housing Society, Peninsula Housing Society, the Semiahmoo Foundation) – 87 homes for families, seniors and people with disabilities
Tsawwassen: 1 project / 160 homes
• $16 million to KinVillage Association – 160 homes for seniors
North Vancouver: 2 projects / 196 homes
• $10.6 million to Kiwanis North Shore Housing Society – 106 homes for individuals and families
• $9 million to Sanford Affordable housing and Hollyburn Family Services Society – 90 homes for individuals and families
Vancouver: 10 projects / 1,101 homes
• $18.1 million to Brightside Homes – 181 homes for individuals, families and seniors
• $4 million to Lookout Housing and Health Society – 40 homes for individuals (2 projects)
• $9.9 million to M. Kopernik Foundation – 99 homes for seniors
• $10.2 million to New Chelsea Society – 102 homes for individuals, families and seniors
• $4.6 million to Salvation Army Harbour Light – 46 homes for individuals
• $3 million to the Kettle Society – 30 homes for seniors with mental health challenges
• $7.7 million to Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency – 77 homes for individuals, families and seniors
• $16.9 million to Vancouver Community Land Trust – 169 homes for people with HIV and AIDS and families and seniors
• $35.7 million to Vancouver Community Land Trust – 357 homes for individuals, families and seniors

I find it interesting that they're going to build these for $100k/unit. Especially in Vancouver.

Ron.

[WarrenC12]

Thanks, I appreciate the post. I'm shocked there's no location/map for any of this stuff.

Also wondering if public money for the Anti-LGBTQ Salvation Army will ruffle any feathers. I can't speak to any of the other organizations on the list, but that one stood out.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Thanks, I appreciate the post. I'm shocked there's no location/map for any of this stuff.

Also wondering if public money for the Anti-LGBTQ Salvation Army will ruffle any feathers. I can't speak to any of the other organizations on the list, but that one stood out.

Map here.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

I find it interesting that they're going to build these for $100k/unit. Especially in Vancouver.

Ron.

It's not clear that the funds mentioned are the sole source of finances. The projects all receive $100,000 per unit, irrespective of where they are (in the Lower Mainland), so it's unlikely to be the entire cost.