The Metro Vancouver Real Estate Thread

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

Foreign capital is a huge source of money in. Even if nothing gets done by the purchaser the seller, real estate agent, government all receive large sums that get spent and so on and so forth. Economics teaches us that each market activity leads to further activity like how water ripples from a rock you throw in.

The ripples from this bag of poo thrown in our water are growing homelessness and increased government expenditures to house working British Columbians who have been priced out of housing. I'd prefer my tax dollars to go towards things like medical care or transportation infrastructure rather than housing Canadians unnecessarily displaced by foreign money. You can take your violin down to the Ferrari dealership and weep for the lost jobs.

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The ripples from this bag of poo thrown in our water are growing homelessness and increased government expenditures to house working British Columbians who have been priced out of housing. I'd prefer my tax dollars to go towards things like medical care or transportation infrastructure rather than housing Canadians unnecessarily displaced by foreign money. You can take your violin down to the Ferrari dealership and weep for the lost jobs.

How has increased home prices caused homelessness? Unemployment is at an all time low so I'd argue its decreased homelessness. What lost jobs are you talking about unemployment at the lowest its ever been. We're even beating Alberta and there housing is much cheaper. As for tax dollars, your tax dollars are inconsequential to what we're getting from Real Estate. Half the city's budget is now from development fees. A large chunk of the province's and federal budget is from real estate. We couldn't afford medical or infrastructure without real estate booming the way it has.

PS: Fun fact, the Albertan NDP were elected in 2015 and tookover from the Conservatives. Look at the unemployment skyrocket...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

How has increased home prices caused homelessness? Unemployment is at an all time low so I'd argue its decreased homelessness. What lost jobs are you talking about unemployment at the lowest its ever been. We're even beating Alberta and there housing is much cheaper. As for tax dollars, your tax dollars are inconsequential to what we're getting from Real Estate. Half the city's budget is now from development fees. A large chunk of the province's and federal budget is from real estate. We couldn't afford medical or infrastructure without real estate booming the way it has.

PS: Fun fact, the Albertan NDP were elected in 2015 and tookover from the Conservatives. Look at the unemployment skyrocket...

OMG, yes, thanks for opening my eyes! I mean, its not like oil's price collapse in 2015 might have effected Alberta's unemployment rate, instead it was all the NDP's fault!

If you think homelessness has decreased in Metro Vancouver you must have blinders on. The only kernel of truth in your statement is that Christy Clarke and the BC Liberals with their ESL Economy made BC dangerously reliant on real estate, as did Vision in Vancouver. We've all learned what an error such a strategy was as it chokes growth in other areas of the economy. Fortunately we've hit the reset button and begun to unwind the excesses of those years.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

As for tax dollars, your tax dollars are inconsequential to what we're getting from Real Estate. Half the city's budget is now from development fees.

Not really. In fact, not at all. The city's budget document shows that only 5% of revenue to the city comes from Licence and development fees. (and the detailed budget shows that only two thirds of that 5% are development fees - the rest is from business licences, sidewalk table fees and the like)

[scryer]

Originally Posted by misher

Its likely the Foreign Buyer tax will be overturned in 2019-2020 as I don't think the court will rule out the Charter and our international trade agreements. Same may happen with the Speculation tax. Until then we're going to have to rely on the domestic market to pull through.

What makes you think that Foreign Buyer Tax and Speculation Tax overturning is a likely thing to happen in BC? It's part of the solution and also one of the reasons why our current mayor was elected: he wants to triple one of them if I remember correctly.

This is a thread I read but I had to ask the question.

And yeah, changing our economy from being solely built on real estate to something else would actually treat the housing crisis. Right now, I feel that we are treating the symptoms.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Not really. In fact, not at all. The city's budget document shows that only 5% of revenue to the city comes from Licence and development fees. (and the detailed budget shows that only two thirds of that 5% are development fees - the rest is from business licences, sidewalk table fees and the like)

add that to this: "In the 2019-2022 capital plan, development contributions totalled $1.046 billion in a budget of $2.8 billion, or about 38 per cent.*"
https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/10/01/Vision-Vancouver-Rezoning-Addiction/

Add in approximately $300 million in public benefits "The 2017 approvals of additional density secured public benefits valued at approximately
$334 million, including 361 units of social housing secured in-kind and owned by the City, a
69-space childcare, and two cultural spaces. Approximately 89% of these public benefits
($296 million) were attributed to large rezoning approvals (where total contribution value is
greater than $10 million)."
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/annual-re...tributions-and-density-bonusing-2017.pdf


No idea if I am adding these correctly but there are strong indicators that we heavily rely on development.

PS:

What makes you think that Foreign Buyer Tax and Speculation Tax overturning is a likely thing to happen in BC?

I'm suggesting it will be overturned because legally its illegal. It doesn't matter how many people support it politically if the courts say its illegal. The lawyers behind it are two of the most famous names in the legal profession. Its the equivalent to bringing nuclear weapons against the government's pea shooters. Arvay kicked BC government ass over Safe Injection sites, assisted suicide, sperm donors, and sex workers. He beat the law society, he beat the Federal government forcing them to not discriminate against sexual orientation, and he beat the School district over trying to enforce religious values. This guy is the Ronaldo of the legal profession when it comes to the Charter. He picks his clients because its not even about money to him. The government has lost to him so many times that they have nightmares of him. He's scarier with a better track record than Johnnie Cochran.

If this were a car race it would be like racing a Civic against a Bugatti. Sure you might win but I'm going to bet on the Bugatti. Arvay takes cases he knows he's going to kick ass in. The judge for this case already knows the ruling after seeing his name.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

PS:
I'm suggesting it will be overturned because legally its illegal. It doesn't matter how many people support it politically if the courts say its illegal. The lawyers behind it are two of the most famous names in the legal profession. Its the equivalent to bringing nuclear weapons against the government's pea shooters. Arvay kicked BC government ass over Safe Injection sites, assisted suicide, sperm donors, and sex workers. He beat the law society, he beat the Federal government forcing them to not discriminate against sexual orientation, and he beat the School district over trying to enforce religious values. This guy is the Ronaldo of the legal profession when it comes to the Charter. He picks his clients because its not even about money to him. The government has lost to him so many times that they have nightmares of him. He's scarier with a better track record than Johnnie Cochran.

If this were a car race it would be like racing a Civic against a Bugatti. Sure you might win but I'm going to bet on the Bugatti. Arvay takes cases he knows he's going to kick ass in. The judge for this case already knows the ruling after seeing his name.

You are going to be sorely disappointed. Even in the unlikely event the government was to lose, public pressure would force further action from the Province or even the Feds. A complete ban on foreign ownership might be in order.

BTW, how is it that the plaintiff, one Jing Li, was able to secure employment in a Canadian non-profit, even though she was no longer a student and didn't bother to become a Permanent Resident or a Canadian citizen. Were there no Canadians or PRs available for the job? Surely her student visa had run out. I think forwarding this to the Minister of Citizenship & Immigration is in order.

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

You are going to be sorely disappointed. Even in the unlikely event the government was to lose, public pressure would force further action from the Province or even the Feds. A complete ban on foreign ownership might be in order.

I don't think you understand how our legal system works. If you can't discriminate against foreign ownership you can't ban it. And if the provincial government can't do it legally neither can the federal.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

I don't think you understand how our legal system works. If you can't discriminate against foreign ownership you can't ban it. And if the provincial government can't do it legally neither can the federal.

You apparently don't understand our legal system. There is no guarantee of property rights for anyone in the Canadian Constitution Act or Charter of Rights. Not even Canadians (oddly enough). A challenge on the basis of NAFTA would fail, as Jing Li is not a citizen of any country included in that agreement.

However the closest you can get to a constitutional mention is this:

Section 6: Mobility Rights
1. Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in, and leave, Canada.
2.Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right:
to move to, and take up residence in, any province, and
to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

Since poor Jing Li is neither of those things, she is not protected in any way by that either. Too bad, so sad.

[GlassCity]

I don't understand how people can actually cheer for the continued exploitation of our housing by external interests when in practice it means that next to no one not already in the property market will ever be able to get into it. I don't know if those opposing new taxes already own their own places, but it's definitely NOT good for the local economy when local people aren't able to purchase property.

This reminds me of Americans cheering on their economy as per the performance of the stock market, ignoring the vastly unequal distribution of those benefits. High housing prices encourages the young to leave and new companies not to settle. $1 million+ price averages are not a desirable thing when average incomes remain low and stagnant. This does not trickle down and benefit non-property owners. It's a cancer and I'm glad it's being treated.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

add that to this: "In the 2019-2022 capital plan, development contributions totalled $1.046 billion in a budget of $2.8 billion, or about 38 per cent.*"
https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/10/01/Vision-Vancouver-Rezoning-Addiction/

Add in approximately $300 million in public benefits "The 2017 approvals of additional density secured public benefits valued at approximately
$334 million, including 361 units of social housing secured in-kind and owned by the City, a
69-space childcare, and two cultural spaces. Approximately 89% of these public benefits
($296 million) were attributed to large rezoning approvals (where total contribution value is
greater than $10 million)."
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/annual-re...tributions-and-density-bonusing-2017.pdf


No idea if I am adding these correctly but there are strong indicators that we heavily rely on development.

You're talking about the capital spending - not revenue. The majority of capital expenditure comes from taxes, and borrowing, especially for renewal of existing facilities and infrastructure. For new facilities, it's split between developer contributions, other government funding (Provincial and Federal) and some from tax revenue.

While it's true that the City of Vancouver anticipates about $1bn coming from DCL and CAC payments in 2019-2022, about half is 'in kind' and half is from cash payments. The City tries to predict the likely income from development, and then allocate those funds to priorities for new facilities that are needed because of that growth.

If the development doesn't happen - (say North East False Creek and Oakridge, and all the other major projects that pay CAC with an in-kind element) or at least doesn't proceed in the plan timeframe, then the capital plan actual expenditure will be smaller. However, many of the facilities won't be needed if the developments haven't been built. If Oakridge is held up, there's no urgent need for the new childcare that they're paying for, or the new library or community centre. The 10% non-market housing asset won't be built either, so the capital plan expenditure and income will be smaller by the value of those parts of the scheme.

It's true that the city is anticipating the $1bn income, and has identified how it should then be spent (in line with Council priorities and the public consultation on the budget) but they don't really rely on them, in the sense that there's a crisis if the funding doesn't get paid. Those projects just get pushed into future plans.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't understand how people can actually cheer for the continued exploitation of our housing by external interests when in practice it means that next to no one not already in the property market will ever be able to get into it. I don't know if those opposing new taxes already own their own places, but it's definitely NOT good for the local economy when local people aren't able to purchase property.

As long as it remains profitable, there is no reason for them to be concerned about the local impact. This is all numbers for them. The ultimate endpoint for any attempt to interfere is political or even commercial suicide.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by MIPS

As long as it remains profitable, there is no reason for them to be concerned about the local impact. This is all numbers for them. The ultimate endpoint for any attempt to interfere is political or even commercial suicide.

I understand this for people in the industry or implicated in its success, but my understanding is there are people who are not involved in it at all who still cheer for continued foreign ownership and price increases. Like it's a contest or something.

Growth is not an infallible good.

[misher]

Whatnext I have no idea why your talking about mobility when the notice of claim is challenging it based on discrimination of national origin.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Btw this isn’t me saying oh the foreign buyers tax is bad! This is me saying that legally it doesn’t have a leg to stand on and the provincial government isn’t above the law.

PS: Rapidly rising housing prices are not that bad but it also risks a collapse. Any large decrease is dangerous. That’s why Canada is trying to steadily increase rates without causing a crash.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

Whatnext I have no idea why your talking about mobility when the notice of claim is challenging it based on discrimination of national origin.



Btw this isn’t me saying oh the foreign buyers tax is bad! This is me saying that legally it doesn’t have a leg to stand on and the provincial government isn’t above the law.

PS: Rapidly rising housing prices are not that bad but it also risks a collapse. Any large decrease is dangerous. That’s why Canada is trying to steadily increase rates without causing a crash.

Given that PEI has had a version of a foreign buyers tax for years, your belief is misplaced. Had the FBT been targeted at one country that discrimination argument might hold water, but it isn’t. All non-Canadians are treated equally.

[Klazu]

What I take from this discussion is that our resident real estate agents are in complete denial about the sky falling and the party being permanently over. It's going to be tough having to actually work for your commission going forward after so many years of just coasting thanks to market conditions and dirty foreign money.

I expect to see a lot of used lease BMWs to flood the marketplace soon as those with no competense to survive the fall will have to start thinking about a new career.

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Given that PEI has had a version of a foreign buyers tax for years, your belief is misplaced. Had the FBT been targeted at one country that discrimination argument might hold water, but it isn’t. All non-Canadians are treated equally.

PEI no one bothered to challenge it. And FBT is targeted at one country, it gives Canadians preference over other nationalities. At least that’s the argument there giving in court. Can you read the notice of claim please.

As for Klazu there’s no need to be a dick. Realtors work hard like everyone else. Just because you don’t like home prices going up doesn’t mean you blame the guys that work in housing. It’s like blaming the plumber because toilets are expensive.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

PEI no one bothered to challenge it. And FBT is targeted at one country, it gives Canadians preference over other nationalities. At least that’s the argument there giving in court. Can you read the notice of claim please.

As for Klazu there’s no need to be a dick. Realtors work hard like everyone else. Just because you don’t like home prices going up doesn’t mean you blame the guys that work in housing. It’s like blaming the plumber because toilets are expensive.

But you're not a realtor.

And Canadians, getting preference in their own country? Perish the thought, what madness!

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

But you're not a realtor.

And Canadians, getting preference in their own country? Perish the thought, what madness!

True. But the law is the law. I wish Canadians had preference over foreigners for our health legal and education system but we don’t :/ courts have used the charter as justification to go crazy with our legal system.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by misher

Whatnext I have no idea why your talking about mobility when the notice of claim is challenging it based on discrimination of national origin.

Btw this isn’t me saying oh the foreign buyers tax is bad! This is me saying that legally it doesn’t have a leg to stand on and the provincial government isn’t above the law.

PS: Rapidly rising housing prices are not that bad but it also risks a collapse. Any large decrease is dangerous. That’s why Canada is trying to steadily increase rates without causing a crash.

Canada is trying to normalize its rates so capital doesn't spill out of the country into our higher-interest paying neighbour. That would cause huge inflation and devaluation of the Canadian dollar.

The only thing that's holding the rate bumps back is the fact that morons binged on debt for grossly overpriced real estate.

Comparing the right to not get left to die in a hospital versus not to own an investment property in Vancouver is a pretty different thing. One is a human right, the other is just business. Nobody dies because they couldn't buy an investment property.