Housing Bubble II: The Quest To Build Enough Homes Where People Actually Need Them

[ssiguy]

Students buying housing is just a back door to foreign investors, money launderers, and citizenship buyers. All they have to do is register their kids in a school and the kids not even bother going {as 20% don't} yet they can then buy as many homes as they like. In true Canada fashion, if the students want to stay then they can and get citizenship to bring in their entire extended family.

The problem is that Canada as a whole has now adopted BC's false economy.........just build houses and allow anyone to buy them regardless of where the money came from. Ponzi Scheme 101. Most of our economic growth since the 2008 Financial Crisis has been on highly unproductive home building and flipping and this has intensified under Trudeau. Now a stoppage in this false economic model would plunge the economy into a deep recession as the emperor has no clothes especially in BC where real estate buying and flipping has become a religion.

I've said it before and I'll say it again............real estate is like an addiction. First you want to take it to feel good and then you have to keep taking it to stop from feeling bad.

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Then it is time to restrict sales to Canadian citizens only. Like Trudeau's laughable exemption of the Foreign Buyers Ban for international students. Why the hell does a student need to own property to go to school here? If renting is good enough for Canadians, it is good enough for them.

I use to live in Saskatoon. In that city it was quite common for kids from farm families to have the parents buy a low cost condo for their kids for the 4 years they were going to university. In some cases it was more like 8 years if they had two kids a few years apart. I was surprised at how common this was. In this example the kids and parents are Canadian.

I have a friend in Toronto that did the same thing when their kid went to Brock university. They purchased a low end condo in St Catharines. When their kids were done going to school they retired, sold their house and moved into the condo. Not certain how common that is in Toronto. Again in this case we are talking about Canadians.

Yes, a student needs to live somewhere. If a family can spring for the down payment, buying and paying the mortgage may well be the answer.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Students buying housing is just a back door to foreign investors, money launderers, and citizenship buyers. All they have to do is register their kids in a school and the kids not even bother going {as 20% don't} yet they can then buy as many homes as they like. In true Canada fashion, if the students want to stay then they can and get citizenship to bring in their entire extended family.

The problem is that Canada as a whole has now adopted BC's false economy.........just build houses and allow anyone to buy them regardless of where the money came from. Ponzi Scheme 101.

We are talking about two different things. A parent buying a home for their kid to live in while going to school in a different city should fine. I wish my parents had the means to do that, but like most middle class families they did not.

A student (with help from their parents) owning more than one home is a very different situation. At that point it is not housing but a business.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't agree with this at all. Our residential property market is set up for citizens and permanent residents and gets preferential tax treatment that makes no sense for the wider interests of this country if it's used as a channel for foreign investment. The failure to correct this over the past decades is scandalous and a sign of corruption. There are other problems like people reporting difficult to verify foreign income and getting mortgages in Canada. There are other problems with the housing market to be sure like supply but this issue of a foreign influx of cash and nonpermanent residents is likely the single biggest factor now as without it we'd have almost nil population growth and a shrinking economy.

Unfortunately these property market issues didn't register as a problem until recently because the affordability problems were mostly local to BC and there's so much obfuscation and moralizing around these issues.

Yeah, with casper's logic any purchase is “a domestic one” since the property is located in Canada and the buyer had to use a Canadian notary and use funds that were in Canada at the time.

By definition, any transaction involving a Canadian property, the people involved inevitably have at least some sort of tie to Canada, it’s a truism / circular logic.

[Coldrsx]

Housing Action Plan money coming today for Edmonton... ~$176 mil or something.

Apparently no provincial representatives expected to be there.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by casper

I use to live in Saskatoon. In that city it was quite common for kids from farm families to have the parents buy a low cost condo for their kids for the 4 years they were going to university. In some cases it was more like 8 years if they had two kids a few years apart. I was surprised at how common this was. In this example the kids and parents are Canadian.

I have a friend in Toronto that did the same thing when their kid went to Brock university. They purchased a low end condo in St Catharines. When their kids were done going to school they retired, sold their house and moved into the condo. Not certain how common that is in Toronto. Again in this case we are talking about Canadians.

Yes, a student needs to live somewhere. If a family can spring for the down payment, buying and paying the mortgage may well be the answer.



We are talking about two different things. A parent buying a home for their kid to live in while going to school in a different city should fine. I wish my parents had the means to do that, but like most middle class families they did not.

A student (with help from their parents) owning more than one home is a very different situation. At that point it is not housing but a business.

You've got it backwards. People buy for their student children, then sell when they graduate, because we're in a "real estate only goes up, don't ask why" situation.

If housing appreciated normally, then the transaction costs wouldn't be worth a short ownership period (it gets better with your 2 kids for 8 years example - but how many people have kids 4 years apart attending the same school? Statistically insignificant).

But because of a number of reasons, it's basically guaranteed appreciation, tax free (put it in Junior's name as their primary residence) buy-and-sell that i both caused by, and contributes to, our housing issues.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jonny24

You've got it backwards. People buy for their student children, then sell when they graduate, because we're in a "real estate only goes up, don't ask why" situation.

If housing appreciated normally, then the transaction costs wouldn't be worth a short ownership period (it gets better with your 2 kids for 8 years example - but how many people have kids 4 years apart attending the same school? Statistically insignificant).

But because of a number of reasons, it's basically guaranteed appreciation, tax free (put it in Junior's name as their primary residence) buy-and-sell that i both caused by, and contributes to, our housing issues.

Spot on analysis.

If they weren't going to see any meaningful appreciation there would be no incentive not to rent.

[casper]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yeah, with casper's logic any purchase is “a domestic one” since the property is located in Canada and the buyer had to use a Canadian notary and use funds that were in Canada at the time.

By definition, any transaction involving a Canadian property, the people involved inevitably have at least some sort of tie to Canada, it’s a truism / circular logic.

Where I draw the dividing line is if someone is living in the home.

I would agree it is a problem if someone buys a property and they (or their family) don't live in the house most of the year. That is taking a unit off the market.

[casper]

Originally Posted by jonny24

You've got it backwards. People buy for their student children, then sell when they graduate, because we're in a "real estate only goes up, don't ask why" situation.

If housing appreciated normally, then the transaction costs wouldn't be worth a short ownership period (it gets better with your 2 kids for 8 years example - but how many people have kids 4 years apart attending the same school? Statistically insignificant).

But because of a number of reasons, it's basically guaranteed appreciation, tax free (put it in Junior's name as their primary residence) buy-and-sell that i both caused by, and contributes to, our housing issues.

When you live in rural Saskatchewan you are more than likely to have you 1.69 kids go to school in Saskatoon. Average age gap between siblings in 2-3 years.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by casper

When you live in rural Saskatchewan you are more than likely to have you 1.69 kids go to school in Saskatoon. Average age gap between siblings in 2-3 years.

I guess housing is fine then

[goodgrowth]

Ontario housing supply overstated by almost 1 million, land development study reveals

https://financialpost.com/real-estat...-million-study

Ontario’s regional planning authorities are overstating the number of lots that are ready for construction by nearly a million housing units, according to a new study commissioned by groups representing the province’s building and land development industry, a discrepancy the industry says debunks any notion it is “sitting on supply.”

The study, conducted by urban development consultancy firm Keleher Planning & Economic Consulting Inc. (KPEC), concluded that there are only 331,600 “shovel-ready” lots available in the province, well below the 1.25 million figure cited by the Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario (RPCO).

According to KPEC, many of the units counted by the RPCO are not ready for construction due to a lack of approvals, permits, or servicing allocations, with others previously rejected by municipal councils or under appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

[casper]

Originally Posted by jonny24

I guess housing is fine then

In that part of the country it is. Alberta and Saskatchewan don't have the same physical constraints limiting the outward growth of their cities.

I am not saying we don't have a housing problem. We do in a number of our larger cities. What I am saying is the solution is not to stop people from buying houses they or their relatives have every intention to live in.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by casper

In that part of the country it is. Alberta and Saskatchewan don't have the same physical constraints limiting the outward growth of their cities.

I am not saying we don't have a housing problem. We do in a number of our larger cities. What I am saying is the solution is not to stop people from buying houses they or their relatives have every intention to live in.

I'm not limiting my comments to the prairies. People do the exact same thing in BC and Ontario.

It works on the prairies for the exact same reason it works in BC and ON - "houses only go up" - across the entire country this effect is felt.

We should not stop citizens and permanent residents from doing so. Given our struggles, I see little reason to let anyone else do so.

[Coldrsx]

Dear lord.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by casper

In that part of the country it is. Alberta and Saskatchewan don't have the same physical constraints limiting the outward growth of their cities.

I am not saying we don't have a housing problem. We do in a number of our larger cities. What I am saying is the solution is not to stop people from buying houses they or their relatives have every intention to live in.

If we were in a famine would you advocate selling Canadian produce to non-Canadians who had every intention of eating it?

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If we were in a famine would you advocate selling Canadian produce to non-Canadians who had every intention of eating it?

If they were residents of Canada or buying food to feed their Canadian relatives; yes I would.

[casper]

Interesting project.

https://victoria.citified.ca/news/26...cipal-planning

A new 265 unit rental tower with no parking received zoning approval in Victoria. The report claims this is the largest such project in Canada with no on-site parking. Not certain if that is true or not. However this is the type of creative thinking that is need to help lower the cost of residential construction.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by casper

Interesting project.

https://victoria.citified.ca/news/26...cipal-planning

A new 265 unit rental tower with no parking received zoning approval in Victoria. The report claims this is the largest such project in Canada with no on-site parking. Not certain if that is true or not. However this is the type of creative thinking that is need to help lower the cost of residential construction.

Just what we need! living spaces that don’t meet the needs of people living there. How will this impact the entire community as their on street parking gets eaten up by these types “pass the buck” of developments. The only one who wins is the developer who makes more from providing less. Stop championing mediocrity.

[bolognium]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Just what we need! living spaces that don’t meet the needs of people living there. How will this impact the entire community as their on street parking gets eaten up by these types “pass the buck” of developments. The only one who wins is the developer who makes more from providing less. Stop championing mediocrity.

What makes you think this development won't meet the resident's needs?

I don't own a car, and I happily live in a downtown apartment building that doesn't have parking available. Abolishing parking minimums is a very positive step away from pervasive auto-centric planning.

Also, some apartment buildings provide one parking space per unit, and the cost of that spot is bundled into the cost of rent. Someone that doesn't own a car ends up paying more for something they have no intention of using. How is that meeting their needs?

Diversity in housing types and the amenities a building offers is is a positive. Not sure why you're trying to spin this.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Humans being humans will seek out the cheapest housing they can find and convince themselves that they can figure something out in regards to their car later. This means they will try parking in public lots, in front of other buildings on other streets, parks, shopping malls, and etc. etc. If residents of a building with no parking could be guaranteed not to have a car then it'd be fine.

[bolognium]

That line of thought seems so antiquated and just stinks of overreach. It's like saying all units should be two-bedroom units because there's no way to guarantee the resident won't have a child. Providing people with options on the rental market that better fit their needs, lifestyles, and requirements is pretty much objectively a positive move.

If someone owns a car and still chooses to rent in a building that doesn't provide parking, then let them deal with the consequences like any normal adult. So what if they pay to park off-site? If street parking becomes a problem then change or enforce the parking bylaws in the area. I genuinely don't see the logic in trying to force mandatory parking down people's throats.

Are you guys just projecting your own car-dependency on others? Is that what's going on?