BC Political Discussion - BC Election 2017 May 9th

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

So your solution is to stop building entirely?

Did you go to the same economics school as Nicolas Maduro?

Next we'll have some people here demanding that prices per sq ft be capped to ensure affordability, then scratch their heads when the market dries up and developers stop building.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logan5

How is it possible to flip a property in a market that is supposedly being overbuilt. Flipping can't work if there are alternatives.

It's like scalping (or flipping) Canuck tickets. But, instead of homes we have seats. Scalpers did well when the Canucks were hot. All games were sold out so your only alternative was to buy from a ticket flipper at a much higher price. Or the Canucks somehow increase seating capacity. Now you can get Canuck tickets at bargain prices (scalpers not making as much money) because there are plenty of seats available as demand for Canuck tickets has dropped.

Read up on the psychology of bubbles.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Next we'll have some people here demanding that prices per sq ft be capped to ensure affordability, then scratch their heads when the market dries up and developers stop building.

That's when socialism is best given that the profit driven suppliers lack the PROPENSITY to deliver social NEEDS at a reasonable/affordable price (given inflation rates/falling or weak profit margins etc.).

Can't forget how FDR's Great Depression era New Deal program to save capitalism began driving the very same private sector that he was trying to revive, bunkers. In one situation (as an example) Con Edison got its GOP right wing politicians to try and block FDR's Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) modernization/industrialization thrusts to help poor/rural Appalachia by damming the local river system for hydroelectric development. Because the GOVERNMENT was the only entity capable of enduring a weak/depressed/non profitable economy in the delivery of such an horrendously expensive project, and given that Con Edison thus saw such PUBLIC SECTOR investment as a financial threat/unassailable form of competition to its core business interest/market profits,...it railed against the New Deal TVA project, correctly calling it COMMUNISM and thus an attack on the interests of private profits OVER COMMUNITY/NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT!

Hence, in such a similar case (where housing development is of critical importance towards sustainable regional/national development), the Canadian/provincial GOVERNMENTS need to step in and provide for the construction of affordable housing...as is the case in Singapore where over 80% of the housing stock (even ones occupied by the wealthy) belongs to/is provided by the GOVERNMENT!

[CanSpice]

Today:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Ironic... the day the BC Libs fall in legislature... a new Mainstreet Research poll comes out showing BC Libs have jumped to a huge 11% lead:

April 29, 2017:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Interesting. Mainstreet Research, which has been pumping out all of these cheap IVR/robo BC opinion polls has been "suspended" from MRIA - the Canadian governing body of polling companies - based upon an MRIA press release from April, 2017 due to the following:

https://mria-arim.ca/sites/default/uploads/files/Mainstreet%20Research%20Sanction%20Posting.pdf

Again, caveat emptor on this cheap polling junk - 2013 BC election polling redux.

Edit: Oh, some more gems:

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Even though riding polls (CATI methodology) are "gold nuggets" IMHO, I'm not a fan of IVR methodology such as Mainstreet Research for myriad of reasons. That said, yesterday Mainstreet Research released 4 riding polls inclusive of 3 mentioned by the foregoing poster. Interesting... but take with grain of salt:

Each riding poll had a sample size of n = ~400...

1. Surrey-Fleetwood:

Lib: 48%
NDP: 39%
Green: 13%

2. Delta North:

Lib: 41%
NDP: 39%
Green: 20%

3. Fraser-Nicola:

Lib: 54%
NDP: 26%
Green: 20%

The only one they got right for the winner was Fraser-Nicola, but it went 42% Lib, 38% NDP, 16% Green.

You'll excuse me while I take this latest Mainstreet poll with a grain of salt.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by canspice

you'll excuse me while i take this latest mainstreet poll anything Stingray2004 says with a grain of salt.

ftfy

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

So your solution is to stop building entirely?

Did you go to the same economics school as Nicolas Maduro?

While flipping in a hot market is something to be wary of and try to combat, especially when it's foreign capital, stopping building is like blowing off your foot with a shotgun to remove a wart, the solution is far worse than the symptom.

Where did I say stop building entirely? I said stop building condos and start building purpose-built rentals. In a way, it's similar how Vancouver let condo building in the downtown core get out of hand, and eventually had to act to ensure there was space left for commercial growth.

And yes foreign buyer flipping is bad, but truthfully I'm more worried about local speculators. Where is their money coming from? Shaky loans? How many more Home Capital bombs are out there waiting to explode?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Where did I say stop building entirely? I said stop building condos and start building purpose-built rentals. In a way, it's similar how Vancouver let condo building in the downtown core get out of hand, and eventually had to act to ensure there was space left for commercial growth.

How do you propose they do this? Municipalities can only control the shape and the size of the building that can be built on a given residential property, they can't dictate how the units in that building can be filled. There is some talk about the provincial government allowing municipalities to zone rental-only, but until that happens the most that a municipality can do is offer incentives to developers to build purpose-built rental buildings.

And even when they do, the NIMBYs come out saying that renters are transient, they don't add to a community, they're poor, they're immigrants, and a whole raft of other nonsense that really drives developers away from even wanting to entertain the decision of building rental stock.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

How do you propose they do this? Municipalities can only control the shape and the size of the building that can be built on a given residential property, they can't dictate how the units in that building can be filled. There is some talk about the provincial government allowing municipalities to zone rental-only, but until that happens the most that a municipality can do is offer incentives to developers to build purpose-built rental buildings.

And even when they do, the NIMBYs come out saying that renters are transient, they don't add to a community, they're poor, they're immigrants, and a whole raft of other nonsense that really drives developers away from even wanting to entertain the decision of building rental stock.

After seeing the Vancouver-Vienna exhibit at the MOV, it became clear to me our housing model is not working for residents. It's broken. The stigma regarding rental buildings is ridiculous. Canada's home ownership rate is currently higher than its ever been, right where the USA was before their crash. It's not sustainable.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Where did I say stop building entirely? I said stop building condos and start building purpose-built rentals.

Why not grant additional density for rentals on top of the existing allowable density?

Otherwise you're just going to see a slowdown of condo developments, pushing prices for purchasers and renters up even more.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by whatnext

After seeing the Vancouver-Vienna exhibit at the MOV, it became clear to me our housing model is not working for residents. It's broken. The stigma regarding rental buildings is ridiculous. Canada's home ownership rate is currently higher than its ever been, right where the USA was before their crash. It's not sustainable.

Yes and I completely agree. However, you didn't answer my question: what do you propose happen? What steps would you take or would you like to see put into place?

[Sheba]

...and now for something completely different

B.C. Liberals lose confidence vote, ending 16 years of government

[logicbomb]

Expected.

LG will determine what occurs next but I suspect we will be back to the polls come August.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Well, interesting times this will be.

[Sheba]

New Brunswick holds lessons for B.C. on Speaker traditions

In 2003, a New Brunswick government was elected with a tenuous one-seat majority, pressing the Speaker into a more partisan role as he was forced to regularly break ties in favour of the ruling Progressive Conservatives.

The Opposition Liberals and constitutional scholars howled that hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition were being thrown out the window.

Veterans of that three-year government are telling British Columbians to expect the unexpected.

No one was in the hot seat more than former PC MLA Bev Harrison, a former Speaker who again accepted the role in 2003.

Like British Columbia, the legislature had to choose someone for the post, a referee job that requires a level of cross-partisan respect to keep order in the House. Traditionally, the Speaker is to function as a non-partisan, detached arbiter of the rules governing the legislature. But that position is challenged with a legislature evenly divided.

Mr. Harrison said in an interview with The Globe and Mail this week that he knew he was heading into a dicey situation, one that would leave him vulnerable to accusations his position would ultimately erode tradition. But he said he had a duty to ensure the stability of the government ruled by his party.

“I did it. I had to. At that point, it was a question of should I precipitate an election when it might not have been in the interest of the province to do it?” he said.

But Mr. Harrison was forced into a position where he routinely voted in favour of government bills. That contradicts the convention that Speakers have a duty to further debate.

Mr. Harrison’s reticence to vote against government bills meant he was behaving as a partisan, contrary to the nature of the job, said Shawn Graham, who was Liberal leader at the time.

“A number of rulings did not preserve the status quo in parliamentary tradition and caused great consternation with his peers, I presume, across the Commonwealth,” Mr. Graham said.

But Geoff Martin, a professor at Mount Allison University who has been studying New Brunswick politics for 25 years, said Mr. Harrison’s behaviour wasn’t a surprise: The MLA knew he was expected to “dance with the one that brung ya.”

It is that sort of compromise of tradition that the BC Liberals have been highlighting this week as they used the legislature to send a message to Lieutenant-Governor Judith Guichon that long-standing traditions around Speaker impartiality and the way bills are ushered through the House would have to change if the NDP required that the Speaker vote with the government.

Mr. Harrison noted that most of the legislative agenda in New Brunswick is debated and carried out in the legislature rather than within the committees used in B.C. to modify bills. That meant that the province’s Progressive Conservative government faced fewer hurdles than the BC New Democrats could face in attempting to change laws.

The NDP maintain they have a workable plan that would not compromise tradition or require changes to the province’s Standing Orders, governing how the House operates.

...

[GeeCee]

If we're going to be posting polls..

http://insightswest.com/news/throne-speech-does-little-to-sway-british-columbians/

If a new election were held tomorrow, 41% of decided voters would cast a ballot for the BC NDP candidate in their riding. The BC Liberals are second with 36%, followed by the BC Greens with 19%.

Steve Thomson just resigned as speaker.

https://twitter.com/richardzussman/status/880591533619073024

[a very long weekend]

So, as a final comment, now that it's clear that Horgan will lead the province, I hope his people (and the green party) don't just enact Ontario-style demand side moves. Zoning is too important to be left in the hands of cities. It's affecting the whole country, and the province should take action! Upzone the cities!
edit: also, fund rapid transit without requiring a referendum. and if you do rapid transit in surrey, then do it elevated and not at the surface level - and upzone massively there too to pay for it!

[Waders]

Lt.-Gov. Judith Guichon asks NDP Leader John Horgan to form government and become premier

We will have to wait to see how long this government can last.

[waves]

I am glad there is at last closure to all the constitutional rhetoric going around about the LG's decision.

[Metro-One]

That is my biggest worry is that they are just going to give Surrey what ever they want regarding transit, despite obviously being the worst choice of technology in its current form.

If they are to step in and upgrade it to Skytrain (or at the very least have a 3 or 4 km long tunneled section through Whalley, with both the King George and the Surrey City Centre stations being underground) then I will have a little more confidence in them to actually lead.

If they just pander to the cities, no questions asked, I will be quite angry.

I also really do not want a full stop on the GMB. Reduce it to 8 lanes, tweet the designs of the bus stops, and extend the rapid bus component all the way to White Rock. That would be the reasonable thing to do.

[Waders]

I think it is a sensible decision to give NDP/Greens a chance to form government.
Otherwise Lt.-Gov would face a lot of criticism.