The Metro Vancouver Real Estate Thread

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

There will be hurt, I will be one of the people licking their wounds.

But its pretty clear to me that 25% + needs to happen to bring some sort of semblance of sanity back.

The price run up is also at the expense of thousands of families. The price run up is certainly not only positive.

Are we just telling people who took out mortgages to suck it up as they lose a quarter of their wealth? People can accept a market related loss, it sucks but thats life. A government instituted loss though is like theft. Imagine taking our a million dollar mortgage and the next year your house is worth $700,000, so your stuck working for the next 10 years because the government wanted your house to be cheaper for the next guy. Imagine what would happen if you bought a stock and the government said your stock was worth too much because other people can't afford that stock, so the government devalues your stock so others can buy it? I can already see the people with pension funds, the unions, etc. going crazy. Btw the teachers pension plan (and others) is heavily invested in real estate, are you going to go tell teachers they should lose a quarter of their retirement so you can buy a house for cheaper?

Real estate is an investment for most and it is not illegal for real estate to be an investment. I understand the argument that the base apartment should be affordable, but the houses in a West Side neighborhood? Goodluck arguing that lol, even the houses in Port Moody are 1 million+ now. Instead of focusing on decreasing the price of luxury real estate to make that affordable, lets focus on increasing the supply of cheap condos? That sounds like a much better solution to a housing shortage than reducing housing prices.

As for the person who said Dunbar housing is too expensive....I think the people who own housing in Dunbar were quite happy with the increase. No one is forcing you to buy a house in Dunbar. Shouldn't the people that live in that neighborhood have more say than the distant observer who is jealous of them? We are suffering from Robin Hood syndrome where the poor feel that the government should take from the rich to give to them.



BTW I DO NOT SELL REAL ESTATE, stop accusing me and instead use facts.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by misher

Are we just telling people who took out mortgages to suck it up as they lose a quarter of their wealth? People can accept a market related loss, it sucks but thats life. A government instituted loss though is like theft. Imagine taking our a million dollar mortgage and the next year your house is worth $700,000, so your stuck working for the next 10 years because the government wanted your house to be cheaper for the next guy. Imagine what would happen if you bought a stock and the government said your stock was worth too much because other people can't afford that stock, so the government devalues your stock so others can buy it? I can already see the people with pension funds, the unions, etc. going crazy. Btw the teachers pension plan (and others) is heavily invested in real estate, are you going to go tell teachers they should lose a quarter of their retirement so you can buy a house for cheaper?

Real estate is an investment for most and it is not illegal for real estate to be an investment. I understand the argument that the base apartment should be affordable, but the houses in a West Side neighborhood? Goodluck arguing that lol, even the houses in Port Moody are 1 million+ now. Instead of focusing on decreasing the price of luxury real estate to make that affordable, lets focus on increasing the supply of cheap condos? That sounds like a much better solution to a housing shortage than reducing housing prices.

As for the person who said Dunbar housing is too expensive....I think the people who own housing in Dunbar were quite happy with the increase. No one is forcing you to buy a house in Dunbar. Shouldn't the people that live in that neighborhood have more say than the distant observer who is jealous of them? We are suffering from Robin Hood syndrome where the poor feel that the government should take from the rich to give to them.



BTW I DO NOT SELL REAL ESTATE, stop accusing me and instead use facts.

It's essential to both separate and to tie together housing and land prices. By lowering land prices you're lowering housing prices, building costs, and property taxes. You need to lower land prices to build "cheaper condos". If a "house" costs 1.5 whatever to buy, you're actually paying that price more-so for the land, its potential, its perceived value.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

Are we just telling people who took out mortgages to suck it up as they lose a quarter of their wealth? People can accept a market related loss, it sucks but thats life. A government instituted loss though is like theft. Imagine taking our a million dollar mortgage and the next year your house is worth $700,000, so your stuck working for the next 10 years because the government wanted your house to be cheaper for the next guy. Imagine what would happen if you bought a stock and the government said your stock was worth too much because other people can't afford that stock, so the government devalues your stock so others can buy it? I can already see the people with pension funds, the unions, etc. going crazy. Btw the teachers pension plan (and others) is heavily invested in real estate, are you going to go tell teachers they should lose a quarter of their retirement so you can buy a house for cheaper?

Real estate is an investment for most and it is not illegal for real estate to be an investment. I understand the argument that the base apartment should be affordable, but the houses in a West Side neighborhood? Goodluck arguing that lol, even the houses in Port Moody are 1 million+ now. Instead of focusing on decreasing the price of luxury real estate to make that affordable, lets focus on increasing the supply of cheap condos? That sounds like a much better solution to a housing shortage than reducing housing prices.

As for the person who said Dunbar housing is too expensive....I think the people who own housing in Dunbar were quite happy with the increase. No one is forcing you to buy a house in Dunbar. Shouldn't the people that live in that neighborhood have more say than the distant observer who is jealous of them? We are suffering from Robin Hood syndrome where the poor feel that the government should take from the rich to give to them.



BTW I DO NOT SELL REAL ESTATE, stop accusing me and instead use facts.

Sucks to be you. Maybe you should have diversified your assets instead of moaning about having all your eggs in one basket and now it is going down.

One always has to remind oneself that the Mainland Chinese only have a couple decades of capitalist experience, coupled with house-horniness brought on by living through Communism. It creates a toxic mix of investment naivete, couple with a misplaced belief that real estate only ever goes up. Since so many only came of age during an ultra-low interest rate environment, they have no idea of what is going to hit them as rates normalize.

And you miss the point, not surprisingly. If not for offshore buyers houses in Dunbar, let alone Port Moody, wouldn't be considered "luxury real estate".

PS if you don't SELL real estate, explain to us what your involvement is in it. It's clear it is where your bread is buttered. Or are you just one of those amateur landlords who has a few condos to peddle?

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by misher

Are we just telling people who took out mortgages to suck it up as they lose a quarter of their wealth? People can accept a market related loss, it sucks but thats life. A government instituted loss though is like theft. Imagine taking our a million dollar mortgage and the next year your house is worth $700,000, so your stuck working for the next 10 years because the government wanted your house to be cheaper for the next guy. Imagine what would happen if you bought a stock and the government said your stock was worth too much because other people can't afford that stock, so the government devalues your stock so others can buy it? I can already see the people with pension funds, the unions, etc. going crazy. Btw the teachers pension plan (and others) is heavily invested in real estate, are you going to go tell teachers they should lose a quarter of their retirement so you can buy a house for cheaper?

Real estate is an investment for most and it is not illegal for real estate to be an investment. I understand the argument that the base apartment should be affordable, but the houses in a West Side neighborhood? Goodluck arguing that lol, even the houses in Port Moody are 1 million+ now. Instead of focusing on decreasing the price of luxury real estate to make that affordable, lets focus on increasing the supply of cheap condos? That sounds like a much better solution to a housing shortage than reducing housing prices.

As for the person who said Dunbar housing is too expensive....I think the people who own housing in Dunbar were quite happy with the increase. No one is forcing you to buy a house in Dunbar. Shouldn't the people that live in that neighborhood have more say than the distant observer who is jealous of them? We are suffering from Robin Hood syndrome where the poor feel that the government should take from the rich to give to them.



BTW I DO NOT SELL REAL ESTATE, stop accusing me and instead use facts.

1)Most locals do not have 1 million dollar mortgages. Many Vancouverites who have experienced capital appreciation in the last years have sold and moved out to the Burbs with cash only purchases. The ones with million dollar mortgages are usually astronaut families or permanent residents using unreported mainland Chinese income to speculate in the metro Vancouver market for the short term while taking out variable rate mortgages (and assigning any rents) - RBC seems to be favorite!

2)Increasing supply of cheap condos has always been going on since Expo 86. In fact, we have seen condos spring up in Vancouver to satisfy demand to levels never seen before, but only a certain demographic appear to be lining up at the presales to gobble up the inventory. These condos have become tools for rampant speculation and money parking. A new trend is where a condo is sold out before a lineup even forms. Sold to "friends and family". Those people are not locals or, if they are, generally serving as nominees for friends, family, and crooked real estate agents, many who share a certain demographic background.

3)I used to work with FINTRAC. The biggest drivers in our real estate has always been a certain demographic with lots of cash and no where to park it - except for Vancouver real estate. I have seen permanent residents buy many properties with family wealth stored up in China and brought into Canada as EFTs (coded as Living Expense or Tuition). As well, seen many ways for the wealthy Chinese investors to get their $50,000 US annual exemption out of China using nominees (friends and families), bitcoin, and other avenues and seen firsthand where the money was purposely invested and inflated metro Vancouver real estate. Enough is enough!

4)CRA is cracking down on such investors and assessing multi million dollar assessments to permanent residents flipping real estate while not reporting their true "world" income in Canada which is required under the IncomeTax Act. These are not people who live in Surrey committing to Vancouver to work as an administrative assistant, or someone working at Starbucks, or someone working in a remote camp in Fort St. John driving a Ford pickup. "Over the past three years, CRA audits have identified $592.6 million in additional taxes related to the real estate sector. " Game over.
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/th...tish-columbia-and-ontario-682968971.html

[rofina]

Originally Posted by misher

Are we just telling people who took out mortgages to suck it up as they lose a quarter of their wealth?

Yes - if market participants are intent on calling housing an investment, then yes. Buyer beware. No one gets to have an investment that only functions one way.

People can accept a market related loss, it sucks but thats life. A government instituted loss though is like theft. Imagine taking our a million dollar mortgage and the next year your house is worth $700,000, so your stuck working for the next 10 years because the government wanted your house to be cheaper for the next guy. Imagine what would happen if you bought a stock and the government said your stock was worth too much because other people can't afford that stock, so the government devalues your stock so others can buy it? I can already see the people with pension funds, the unions, etc. going crazy. Btw the teachers pension plan (and others) is heavily invested in real estate, are you going to go tell teachers they should lose a quarter of their retirement so you can buy a house for cheaper?

Governments change stock prices all the time - that's what policy does. See how tariffs hit stocks, see how mining permits apply to juniors, see how cannabis licenses work on growers, see how pharma companies pop on approved trails.

The point is - we have government regulation that tries to ensure a level playing filed, often this means an equity loss.

The people behind OTPP I'm sure are well aware of the risks of Canadian RE; half the developed world is in awe of the mess on the West Coast.

Real estate is an investment for most and it is not illegal for real estate to be an investment. I understand the argument that the base apartment should be affordable, but the houses in a West Side neighborhood? Goodluck arguing that lol, even the houses in Port Moody are 1 million+ now. Instead of focusing on decreasing the price of luxury real estate to make that affordable, lets focus on increasing the supply of cheap condos? That sounds like a much better solution to a housing shortage than reducing housing prices.

This is a caricature of whats happening here. No one is saying people are owed a single family home on the West Side, or elsewhere for that matter.

What most are saying, build housing thats affordable for locals. That type of housing does not include: Vancouver House, Butterfly, Kengo Kuma, and the other countless towers selling for near $2000 a square foot.

As for the person who said Dunbar housing is too expensive....I think the people who own housing in Dunbar were quite happy with the increase. No one is forcing you to buy a house in Dunbar. Shouldn't the people that live in that neighborhood have more say than the distant observer who is jealous of them? We are suffering from Robin Hood syndrome where the poor feel that the government should take from the rich to give to them.

No - we are suffering from " I want regulations, but only if they help my house appreciate" syndrome.

Deregulation, or no regulation, is a form of regulation. Boomers were thrilled because exuberant increases benefited them, and no one else.

Now the populace is asking for policy that benefits the masses - its shame that policy will need to make astronomical prices come down to levels that still make it most expensive in North America.

BTW I DO NOT SELL REAL ESTATE, stop accusing me and instead use facts.

Maybe you don't, but you show a complete lack of willingness to view the opposite side.

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

Yes - if market participants are intent on calling housing an investment, then yes. Buyer beware. No one gets to have an investment that only functions one way.



Governments change stock prices all the time - that's what policy does. See how tariffs hit stocks, see how mining permits apply to juniors, see how cannabis licenses work on growers, see how pharma companies pop on approved trails.

The point is - we have government regulation that tries to ensure a level playing filed, often this means an equity loss.

The people behind OTPP I'm sure are well aware of the risks of Canadian RE; half the developed world is in awe of the mess on the West Coast.



This is a caricature of whats happening here. No one is saying people are owed a single family home on the West Side, or elsewhere for that matter.

What most are saying, build housing thats affordable for locals. That type of housing does not include: Vancouver House, Butterfly, Kengo Kuma, and the other countless towers selling for near $2000 a square foot.



No - we are suffering from " I want regulations, but only if they help my house appreciate" syndrome.

Deregulation, or no regulation, is a form of regulation. Boomers were thrilled because exuberant increases benefited them, and no one else.

Now the populace is asking for policy that benefits the masses - its shame that policy will need to make astronomical prices come down to levels that still make it most expensive in North America.



Maybe you don't, but you show a complete lack of willingness to view the opposite side.

The below is a very passionate speech and I'd like to start it by quoting an article by Globe news

the cost of building in Metro Vancouver comes out looking more expensive than any other region in Canada.

I accept the opposite side and propose that density increases and decreased development costs are the solution. If everything is currently at maxed out density how are we supposed the house our growing population. Giant 20-40 story rental towers beside transit stations are the solution, not luxury townhouses and 3-5 story buildings down Cambie. Look at what Burnaby, New West, Surrey, and Richmond have done...were they wrong? Or is Vancouver just throwing around blame without instituting the obvious solution.

And a reminder that 400-600+/sqft of that new development cost goes to the government and it has dramatically increased in the past 10 years. Development costs have gone up significantly due to the government while your government has blamed foreigners, speculators, etc. If you buy a home for free you'll still have to spend $644,000 dollars on it simply because of the government, double what is normal elsewhere. https://globalnews.ca/news/4208533/vancouver-detached-home-building-costs/ Please read this article as it basically discusses what I believe in, that we need to focus on the supply side rather than the demand side.

You'll notice that buying a new condo in richmond and burnaby is significantly cheaper partially because the government charges less per sqft than vancouver. Around a third of gas prices come from taxes yet the government blamed predatory gas companies when gas prices were suddenly raised (and did not reduce taxes at all to counterbalance the increase, instead as our gas prices went up the taxes on them increased! Vancouverites are charged the highest gas taxes in Canada, almost double the Canadian average) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_fuel_taxes_in_Canada, do you honestly believe real estate development is taxed any less than gas? Lets be honest, taxes in Vancouver are insane.

Instead of listening to the government's propaganda, do your own research. We have a huge housing crisis and instead of reducing taxes & costs to make more housing the fat cats in government have doubled them, then blamed everyone else while throwing the extra money into buying votes. The housing crisis was not created by foreigners, it was created when the damn government raised taxes, costs, etc. The price of old condos goes up because buying a new condo is damn expensive exactly because 1/3-1/4 of that price is going to the government. Houses cost a minimum of a million because building a new house costs $644,000. Instead of blaming others and asking for more taxes, ask for less taxes on the things that are overpriced.

[GenWhy?]

Is what you said above directly related to detached homes (as per your article you posted) or rental, or condos, or all of the above. I only mention this to be exact in providing further information, because the market and situation is very different for all three, all of which are tied to the "Real Estate Market" (the price / sale / purchase of land)… all of which are constrained by different factors in each city in the Metro Region.

Working with residents and developers in Burnaby around Metrotown, I'd argue that is a model absolutely not to follow and has made the situation there worse beyond repair in the near future. Council has halted just now rezonings to allow more affordable rental options to end the mass elimination of under market rentals and displacement of hundreds of residents.

[GenWhy?]

Again look at land costs... from your article:

"The MPPC was derived by taking construction costs, which were based on the value of building permits and the number of new single-detached units in different Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), as reported by Statistics Canada.
This number was then added to the cost of buying land. Together, they were then multiplied by the margins developers earn as profit to produce the MPPC.
Then, that metric was substituted from the market price of housing."


A simple 60's home in Hastings-Sunrise with a roughly converted basement suite can sell for $1.3 million. Where, for example, in Edmonton it would sell for $300k or less if being neighbourhood comparable? I'm fairly sure property taxes are higher in Edmonton (I'm a former resident) and most prairie cities too. Vancouver property taxes are quite low compared to the nation. A major issue in Alberta is that cities fund a lot of their... everything off property taxes and some off fees. Property taxes out there increase above inflation all the time to fund LRT, rec centres, sewer upgrades... they don't have the City Charter that Van does and thus no DCCs DCLs.

[s211]

Originally Posted by misher

And a reminder that 400-600+/sqft of that new development cost goes to the government and it has dramatically increased in the past 10 years. Development costs have gone up significantly due to the government while your government has blamed foreigners, speculators, etc.

When the city first created DCCs in Downtown South in the early 90s, the rate was $35 psf, and you can only imagine the outcry at the time. One rather revered figure in the market called them blackmail charges (because they were a new creation that prior developments in history did not have to pay), a descriptive I've never forgotten.

[GenWhy?]

DCCs have doubled since 1997 for all forms of development. DCCs are for the Metro authority for sewer/water. DCCs are about $1k per unit for apartment buildings which is 4+ units per building, about $1.8k for a SF home.


Most of the chatter here might be referring to DCLs and CACs which are different and do/do not apply to certain types for buildings/forms/projects and offset property tax increases to a degree. Tools in a tool box.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

.... Development costs have gone up significantly due to the government while your government has blamed foreigners, speculators, etc...

Aren't they your government too?

[GenWhy?]

Development related costs have gone up (DCC, DCL, CAC) due to low property taxes, growing population, old infrastructure, increasing demands for expanded amenities and their repairs), application costs have gone up due to staff limitations, area growth and demand, and a lack of streamlining of process (lack of City up-zoned land).

These are separate - largely - from land costs / home costs, which the province and Van (other Metro cities) are trying to combat with new policies (taxes included).

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Again look at land costs... from your article:

"The MPPC was derived by taking construction costs, which were based on the value of building permits and the number of new single-detached units in different Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), as reported by Statistics Canada.
This number was then added to the cost of buying land. Together, they were then multiplied by the margins developers earn as profit to produce the MPPC.
Then, that metric was substituted from the market price of housing."


A simple 60's home in Hastings-Sunrise with a roughly converted basement suite can sell for $1.3 million. Where, for example, in Edmonton it would sell for $300k or less if being neighbourhood comparable? I'm fairly sure property taxes are higher in Edmonton (I'm a former resident) and most prairie cities too. Vancouver property taxes are quite low compared to the nation. A major issue in Alberta is that cities fund a lot of their... everything off property taxes and some off fees. Property taxes out there increase above inflation all the time to fund LRT, rec centres, sewer upgrades... they don't have the City Charter that Van does and thus no DCCs DCLs.

I know theres many articles that say property taxes here are low, but thats by percentage of value. In comparison to other cities the total paid is much higher. The article below is a bit opinionated and I don't agree with much of it but it does help explain it https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/davidfine2/vancouver-property-taxes-not-low_a_23438337/

[whatnext]

The BC Liberals, already tarnished by the casino money laundering, are bracing for what revelation will come out of a money laundering probe into real estate

David Eby’s investigation of criminal money laundering in B.C. casinos stunned British Columbians last June.

Videos of high-rolling gamblers hauling suitcases of cash into Richmond’s River Rock Casino provided a shocking visual backdrop to a blistering report on out-of-control money laundering.

But the report — detailing millions of dollars in suspicious cash transactions and bungled government efforts to stop them — did more than shock the public.

It triggered calls for a full public inquiry, something the NDP government has not ruled out. And it caused major damage to the vanquished B.C. Liberal Party, in power when the dirty loot was flowing.

Now the crusading attorney general is set to swing his wrecking ball again. Phase 2 of Eby’s money-laundering probe will launch next month, this time into suspected criminal activity in Metro Vancouver’s distorted real-estate market.

You can bet more damage will be done to the Liberals, as they face more questions about what they did — and didn’t — do to stop the madness.

On Friday, Eby sent a letter to Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson, asking him to waive cabinet secrecy laws and release high-level confidential documents on money laundering prepared for the previous government...

https://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics...ys-money-laundering-hit-list-real-estate

How crazy is it the NDP has to ask for those documents? If they were prepared for the Government of BC they should be the property of the people, not the party of the day.

[Firebrand]

I can picture in my head of Rich Coleman accusing Eby of libel because of the report.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The BC Liberals, already tarnished by the casino money laundering, are bracing for what revelation will come out of a money laundering probe into real estate

David Eby’s investigation of criminal money laundering in B.C. casinos stunned British Columbians last June.

Videos of high-rolling gamblers hauling suitcases of cash into Richmond’s River Rock Casino provided a shocking visual backdrop to a blistering report on out-of-control money laundering.

But the report — detailing millions of dollars in suspicious cash transactions and bungled government efforts to stop them — did more than shock the public.

It triggered calls for a full public inquiry, something the NDP government has not ruled out. And it caused major damage to the vanquished B.C. Liberal Party, in power when the dirty loot was flowing.

Now the crusading attorney general is set to swing his wrecking ball again. Phase 2 of Eby’s money-laundering probe will launch next month, this time into suspected criminal activity in Metro Vancouver’s distorted real-estate market.

You can bet more damage will be done to the Liberals, as they face more questions about what they did — and didn’t — do to stop the madness.

On Friday, Eby sent a letter to Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson, asking him to waive cabinet secrecy laws and release high-level confidential documents on money laundering prepared for the previous government...

https://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics...ys-money-laundering-hit-list-real-estate

How crazy is it the NDP has to ask for those documents? If they were prepared for the Government of BC they should be the property of the people, not the party of the day.

No kidding.

This isn't a file that should include some top secret, national security, non public details...

And if it does, that's all the more to worry about.

EDIT:

This actually infuriates me.
We elect and pay these people to represent us. They serve us. Period.
The fact the Liberals have the gull to not share this is so far beyond palatable.
This is arguably the single file that has sunk them - its so patently clear they stand for the PARTY first, and the people a distant, distant second.

That party needs an enema, all new faces. The level of corruption and cronyism is epic by an standard.

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

No kidding.

This isn't a file that should include some top secret, national security, non public details...

And if it does, that's all the more to worry about.

EDIT:

This actually infuriates me.
We elect and pay these people to represent us. They serve us. Period.
The fact the Liberals have the gull to not share this is so far beyond palatable.
This is arguably the single file that has sunk them - its so patently clear they stand for the PARTY first, and the people a distant, distant second.

That party needs an enema, all new faces. The level of corruption and cronyism is epic by an standard.

I read an article that said the NDP did the exact same thing when the Liberals asked them to release documents so this may be a tit for tat thing. Can't find it right now.

[whatnext]

The next logical step?

New Zealand bans most foreigners from buying homes

New Zealand has banned most foreigners from buying homes as it tries to tackle runaway housing prices.

Previously the housing market was open to investors worldwide, but the government on Wednesday passed legislation that allows only New Zealand residents to buy homes.

In recent years, there have been many anecdotal stories of wealthy foreigners from Silicon Valley and beyond buying ranches in picturesque rural New Zealand as a “bolt hole” or escape option from a turbulent world.

There have also been stories of wealthy Chinese buyers outbidding New Zealanders on suburban homes in the main city of Auckland...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business...-bans-most-foreigners-from-buying-homes/

[Jalapeño Chips]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The next logical step?

New Zealand bans most foreigners from buying homes

New Zealand has banned most foreigners from buying homes as it tries to tackle runaway housing prices.

Previously the housing market was open to investors worldwide, but the government on Wednesday passed legislation that allows only New Zealand residents to buy homes.

In recent years, there have been many anecdotal stories of wealthy foreigners from Silicon Valley and beyond buying ranches in picturesque rural New Zealand as a “bolt hole” or escape option from a turbulent world.

There have also been stories of wealthy Chinese buyers outbidding New Zealanders on suburban homes in the main city of Auckland...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business...-bans-most-foreigners-from-buying-homes/

Wishful thinking for BC, but I am nonetheless still hopeful some restriction does come here.

It's insanity.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

Wishful thinking for BC, but I am nonetheless still hopeful some restriction does come here.

It's insanity.

I understand that we don't run our government like a business and its not expected to make a profit but to me it makes business sense to tax the hell out of people rather than ban it entirely. if you check our budget http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2018/estimates/2018_Estimates.pdf
Tobacco brings in $800 million in revenue, similar to what fuel taxes bring in. Imagine if half the money that was spent on drugs went to taxes as well!
Only 2.2 billion is spent on social assistance so an extra $500 million makes a huge difference in our budget.

I don't agree with the 20% tax foreign buyer as its too high (btw 15%->20% was a publicity move, if someone is dumb enough to pay 15% then they will pay 20%), a 5% tax would likely result in much greater total income as a 20% tax just scares people away. However, banning it entirely makes no sense at all as a 20% tax brings in huge income for each sucker that is willing to pay it.

BTW New Zealand is still allowing condo purchases by foreign buyers with some restrictions.