BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023

[chowhou]

Well now you're just moving the goalposts. We should all agree that municipalities are passing too much of capital costs onto new properties.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Well now you're just moving the goalposts. We should all agree that municipalities are passing too much of capital costs onto new properties.

I think 'Hoping the Federal government does something about all the taxes and fees on new builds' and then suggesting new home owners shouldn't have to pay property tax was moving the goalposts in the BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023 thread.

Bill 46 suggests the BC Government aren't too worried about allowing amenity charges to be passed on to developers.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Isn't the city using money it already collected from previous developments in the past? By your logic the owners of any units that paid into the Density Bonus fund since 1997 (about a third of Burnaby's homes) shouldn't have to pay property taxes either.

a property tax holiday for these developments for several years to make up for it.

I said several years, not the time between now and 1997. Read that part well.

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's not new owners in the future who will pay most of the cost of a new City Hall, or the RCMP building.

It's the new buyers of the past who paid for them, which is the problem. The new buyers of the future will pay in full for future projects.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Changing City

and then suggesting new home owners shouldn't have to pay property tax

Dude, I said a property tax holiday for several years, not that they should just not have to pay property taxes anymore period. You are arguing with a misreading of my statement.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Dude, I said a property tax holiday for several years, not that they should just not have to pay property taxes anymore period. You are arguing with a misreading of my statement.

Then by your logic those owners of any unit that was built since 1997 and paid into the fund should get a property tax holiday for several years. I can't see any politician introducing the legislation (and I still think it's a ridiculous idea, and it still has nothing to do with the topic of this thread).

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Then by your logic those owners of any unit that was built since 1997 and paid into the fund should get a property tax holiday for several years. I can't see any politician introducing the legislation (and I still think it's a ridiculous idea, and it still has nothing to do with the topic of this thread).

No, not according to my logic. I have never said anything like that, that's far too complicated and water under the bridge. When you cut taxes, you usually don't give tax returns retroactively on inapplicable years. Especially not all the way back to 1997. What? Only if there was time travel should that be done. Going forward, however, we should be doing what I said as a way to reduce housing prices and boost supply while funding the necessary infrastructure upgrades.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

When you cut taxes, you usually don't give tax returns retroactively on inapplicable years. Especially not all the way back to 1997.

On top of that, a tax break for existing properties is not needed to help those properties exist. They already exist. It's removing a disincentive on new properties that makes the policy potentially valuable.

[CanSpice]

Looks like Burnaby took the "fuck around" route, can't wait to see what the "find out" looks like.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Looks like Burnaby took the "fuck around" route, can't wait to see what the "find out" looks like.

I liked this quote from Hurley:

“I understand staff’s role – staff are going to do the legal thing, yeah, but that doesn’t mean that’s council’s role. It’s totally different.”

"Yeah, I mean staffers have to obey the law obviously but I kind of think we're above the law, personally."

[mcj]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Looks like Burnaby took the "fuck around" route, can't wait to see what the "find out" looks like.

I wonder if they'll find out pre-election or post-election. Politically easier to wait until November to bring down the real hammer.

[chowhou]

Big news day. The housing minister just announced that Single Egress Stairway (SES) buildings will be (partially) legalized in the fall.

https://x.com/KahlonRav/status/1806327384741658820

We’re leaving no stone unturned in our work to deliver more homes for people, faster. 🏡

In January, we commissioned a report to work with all partners on updates to the Building Code with Single Egress Stairs.

Today, I released that report:
👉🏾 http://shorturl.at/LSiL8

🧵[1/4]

The BC Building Code can evolve to support a different housing mix, so we’re looking to other jurisdictions on what is already working.

Single Egress Stair (SES) designs allow for better use of space and are already implemented in major cities like Seattle and New York.

🧵[2/4]

And we have to find ways to innovate to allow for more climate-friendly designs that employ passive cooling.

We’ve seen research from around the world that shows SES buildings can be designed to allow for more opportunities at natural cross-ventilation in apartments. 🔄

🧵[3/4]

The report shows SES builds can have risks mitigated through design:
✅Sprinkler systems
✅Four units per floor
✅Wider staircases
Only in communities with professional fire services.

This fall, we will be introducing code changes to allow SES.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwXQb7CfM

🧵[4/4]

[Migrant_Coconut]

I believe most of the aforementioned countries have fire escapes to offset the single staircase. Hope Victoria's got that in mind.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

For clarity, the "Canada" here is what is currently allowed, not what is proposed.

[BaddieB]

We, as a province, don't deserve Ravi Kahlon

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I believe most of the aforementioned countries have fire escapes to offset the single staircase. Hope Victoria's got that in mind.

Interesting.

With modern sprinkler systems this shouldn't be an issue though with a building as long as the Seattle example I'd have a bit of concern about only one exit if it was an explosion/fire event or earthquake.

[chowhou]

Sooo... How many of these actually happened and how many have seen no action?

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/ho...ne_30_2024.pdf

[whatnext]

The great David Eby, making housing unaffordable:

B.C. to require new homes to be adaptable for disabilities, prompting concern from developers
FRANCES BULA
VANCOUVER
PUBLISHED JULY 1, 2024
UPDATED JULY 2, 2024

All new homes constructed in British Columbia will be required starting next March to be easily adapted so anyone with a disability can live in them, but builders are raising concern about the expenses of the changes, prompting Vancouver to delay compliance.

Developers say the new rules will add potentially tens of thousands to the cost of all news homes because ensuring all builds can accommodate someone with a wheelchair or walker, for example, will require bigger kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, among other changes.…

….. It can mean having to increase the size of a unit by 5 to 10 per cent. Adding costs means you can’t build what people can afford,” said Anne McMullin, the president of the Urban Development Institute, the advocacy organization for the building industry…

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ies-prompting/

[BaddieB]

Divided on how I feel about this. Is it an example of the curb-cut effect, which will benefit everyone including the disabled, or a barrier to building new housing at all?

[SFUVancouver]

The Province should use legislation to require municipalities to exclude from zoning GFA calculations the incremental increase in GFA that is associated with conforming with the new requirement that dwellings must be able to be modified to accommodate universal accessibility. There would have to be an upper limit on the percentage of incremental GFA that could excluded, of course.

This will result in larger floorplates, but okay. Fine with me. BC tower floorplates are already about 100 m2 smaller than typical Ontario tower floorplates.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The Province should use legislation to require municipalities to exclude from zoning GFA calculations the incremental increase in GFA that is associated with conforming with the new requirement that dwellings must be able to be modified to accommodate universal accessibility. There would have to be an upper limit on the percentage of incremental GFA that could excluded, of course.

This will result in larger floorplates, but okay. Fine with me. BC tower floorplates are already about 100 m2 smaller than typical Ontario tower floorplates.

There’s no question floor plates have become too small thanks to outrageous land prices. However this will saddle 100% of new home buyers with an extra cost to benefit what percentage of possible buyers that have a disability that will be helped>5%?