General Vancouver Development Updates II

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Then the city should stay in its wheelhouse and cut their fees.

This is becoming the standard mo for Mayor Bagel Shop. Someone needs to tell him he’s not running a business.

This is their wheelhouse:

https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/vancouver-housing-development-office.aspx

https://council.vancouver.ca/20240123/documents/r1.pdf

[GenWhy?]

I'll back up a step further here and say this is a much better use of limited grey / brown zones than paving over golf courses.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Then the city should stay in its wheelhouse and cut their fees.

This is becoming the standard mo for Mayor Bagel Shop. Someone needs to tell him he’s not running a business.

You, and the other electors, get the chance to tell him in the Vancouver city election: Saturday, October 17, 2026.

In the meantime your opinion is shared by realtors who make their money trading rental blocks. They're apparently not keen on competition. "Mayor Ken Sim and his ABC Vancouver party promised to bring a businesslike ethos to the management of the city’s affairs. Perhaps it should be no surprise, then, that they are taking steps to turn the City of Vancouver into a profit-seeking corporation"

[chowhou]

Should the city divest from every co-op in Vancouver as well? Is there a huge difference between the city selling 30 year leases for housing and selling monthly leases for housing?

Personally I'm on the fence about this and for co-ops on city owned leased land, but if you're going to be against one I think you have to be against the other as well.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

This is their wheelhouse:

https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/vancouver-housing-development-office.aspx

To be fair, anything can be in the city's wheelhouse if they decide they want it to be. The higher level meta question is whether the city should decide that housing provision should be in their wheelhouse. There has always been a debate about whether municipalities are taking on provincial/federal/other responsibilities that may or may not be in their wheelhouse.

[urbanight93]

People advocate for more housing, get it, then complain...

The reality is we need a mix of housing types and sources if Vancouver is going to keep growing and attracting top talent.

I don't agree that the City should only be focused on social housing that will always be subsidized by taxpayers. Having the City add to the housing stock will free up housing options and keep the market competitive.

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Then the city should stay in its wheelhouse and cut their fees.

This is becoming the standard mo for Mayor Bagel Shop. Someone needs to tell him he’s not running a business.

Back in the early 90s, the city set up ground leases for the newly formed Vancouver Land Company (Corporation?) who eventually morphed into Concert Properties, who then built purpose-built rental. I wonder if a similar arrangement might make sense for these other properties the City holds.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

To be fair, anything can be in the city's wheelhouse if they decide they want it to be. The higher level meta question is whether the city should decide that housing provision should be in their wheelhouse. There has always been a debate about whether municipalities are taking on provincial/federal/other responsibilities that may or may not be in their wheelhouse.

I know may might not share this comparison, but I see this no different than the City building a rec centre and charging user fees. The user fees are just really high

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

In the meantime your opinion is shared by realtors who make their money trading rental blocks. They're apparently not keen on competition. "Mayor Ken Sim and his ABC Vancouver party promised to bring a businesslike ethos to the management of the city’s affairs. Perhaps it should be no surprise, then, that they are taking steps to turn the City of Vancouver into a profit-seeking corporation"

This is next-level batty. I can't.. well maybe a little... believe they thought, wrote, and posted this opinion piece.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I know may might not share this comparison, but I see this no different than the City building a rec centre and charging user fees. The user fees are just really high

I'm actually more sympathetic towards market rental than co-ops. With a community rec centre, although it may be subsidized by the public, you've got pubicly land and publicly paid for infrastructure that is 100% publicly available and intended to be a service for everyone. With market rental, you've got publicly land and public infrastructure that is not 100% publicly available, but at least it is intended to be a funding source for the public to provide other services. Co-ops on the other hand are public land with privately paid for infrastructure (but subsidized by the public) that is even less publicly available than the rentals (membership must be approved by existing members) and provides neither services nor funding for services while it exists.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What does that mean to you? The City has always been involved in housing and real estate. If they are purchasing a profitable asset, how does "staying in their wheelhouse" allow them to "reduce fees"?

Housing yes, but not for markets private developers can serve. The municipalities development fees have skyrocketed to keep taxes low for existing owners and screw new buyers. Let that correct.

You can search job listings in downtown and you’ll find a whole lot that pay under $90k a year. They should be serving that market for housing.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Housing yes, but not for markets private developers can serve. The municipalities development fees have skyrocketed to keep taxes low for existing owners and screw new buyers. Let that correct.

You can search job listings in downtown and you’ll find a whole lot that pay under $90k a year. They should be serving that market for housing.

When the city says it's targeting $90k - $194k I believe they're always talking about household income. After all it doesn't make sense to target individual people's incomes for housing, it makes sense to target the household income. If you have a couple both making under $90k you're immediately an "under $180k" household. You actually take home more than someone making $180k since the tax burden is split.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

When the city says it's targeting $90k - $194k I believe they're always talking about household income. After all it doesn't make sense to target individual people's incomes for housing, it makes sense to target the household income. If you have a couple both making under $90k you're immediately an "under $180k" household. You actually take home more than someone making $180k since the tax burden is split.

So, am I correct in interpreting that to say an individual making $85k wouldn't be the target nor would a household of two making $85k?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So, am I correct in interpreting that to say an individual making $85k wouldn't be the target nor would a household of two making $85k?

Sounds like it yes. But that's not to say that a household making $85k wouldn't be able to afford these units either. It's all a matter of how much of your income you're able to put towards rent.

[jollyburger]

Goodman on COV's rental developments

If the City truly wants to expand housing availability, the proceeds from selling this one trophy property could pay for 10 perfectly serviceable sites outside the downtown core.

By building below-market housing on these lots, the City could lift the inclusionary-housing burden from private-sector projects – spurring the construction of many times the 1,100 units planned for this expensive city-led project.

In addition to taking appropriate responsibility for non-market housing, the City could also make less prominent properties available as swing sites, where tenants temporarily displaced by new development could be housed until replacement units are completed. Such safe and modern government-operated housing would relieve a massive obstacle to new development, and remove the uncertainty and disruption these tenants endure.

We're all in favour of the City managing its affairs in a businesslike way. But it should stick to its own job, rather than using its resources and regulatory weapons to take unfair advantage in a market that, right now, it is actively obstructing.

I mean if there's no way for the city to keep up with services/infrastructure with their current revenue streams then dipping into market rental might not be that out of order.

https://storeys.com/vancouver-housing-development-office-strategy/

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Housing yes, but not for markets private developers can serve. The municipalities development fees have skyrocketed to keep taxes low for existing owners and screw new buyers. Let that correct.

Give me a break. You are among the first to whine about property taxes.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Give me a break. You are among the first to whine about property taxes.

Find a post.

[officedweller]

Doesn't the City run EasyPark and profit and compete against other parking lot companies?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Doesn't the City run EasyPark and profit and compete against other parking lot companies?

You could argue that community centres compete against gyms and country clubs too. Public art galleries compete against private art galleries. Busses compete against taxis. City golf courses compete against private golf courses. Park concession stands compete against local restaurants. None of this is bad. More competition is good.

[officedweller]

Yup. Agreed.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by chowhou

You could argue that community centres compete against gyms and country clubs too. Public art galleries compete against private art galleries. Busses compete against taxis. City golf courses compete against private golf courses. Park concession stands compete against local restaurants. None of this is bad. More competition is good.

This!! Yes!