Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[casper]

Originally Posted by theman23

Living wage? Aren't most dairy farmers multi-millionaires with annual incomes four times times the Canadian median?

I only know two dairy farm owners. My observation:

Most/many dairy farmers have farm workers in Canada on temporary work permits.

Most farms are owned by a farm family that has invested millions into building the infrastructure to run a dairy farm. They are working hard to pay back BMO, RBC, CIBC etc. Like many small business owners they are doing well once everything is paid off but until then they are just trying to get buy and keep the banks and food safety inspectors happy.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by casper

Most farms are owned by a farm family that has invested millions into building the infrastructure to run a dairy farm. They are working hard to pay back BMO, RBC, CIBC etc. Like many small business owners they are doing well once everything is paid off but until then they are just trying to get buy and keep the banks and food safety inspectors happy.

They have to start with a pile of money to make that investment don't they?

Sounds like they are far above the median Canadian wealth and income level.

[casper]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

They have to start with a pile of money to make that investment don't they?

Sounds like they are far above the median Canadian wealth and income level.

I don't know a lot of farmers. The two I know are inter-generational and what I know is just based on my interaction with them. So take it with a grain of salt.

Parents have a farm. Help kids get started farming. .....

The permits (or whatever they call to have a cow or chicken) that is in production are worth quite a bit of money.

As the market expands due to population new permits get created and are given away through a lottery to young farmers wanting to enter the market.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

They have to start with a pile of money to make that investment don't they?

Sounds like they are far above the median Canadian wealth and income level.

I have family who are dairy farmers; let me assure you the whole “dairy cartel” nonsense is basically a fiction. Yes, there are problems with the supply management system, especially in terms of resistance to foreign products (not so much fluid milk, which I’m happy to see procured domestically, but foreign cheeses and other products). But the farmers themselves are not living gilded lives. They make a good living, typically with household incomes in the low six figure. Not sure why we should begrudge this, given the difficulty and importance of the work.

The actual wealth they have is 🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵 in equipment, livestock and property, secured by loans, like any small-business owner.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Of course, but we're talking about rent controls.

Supply management is how the milk price is controlled.
Supply management is what is needed to control rent and house prices.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Bike stall number minimum requirements for new developments for all uses both occupants and visitors. Pretty sure the all the major cities in the BC Lower Mainland do this, for example.

Vancouver has a minimum # of "oversized" bike stall requirement too ("SUV bikes").

Ah, yes.
How would that work for places that are not bike friendly?
It would be good to first start with removing parking minimums and getting the local council to become bike friendly.

Originally Posted by jonny24

Remember when everyone was losing their minds off of other countries holding back vaccines, PPE, other supplies for themselves, and we were left without because we couldn't supply our own, and everyone said well we should have some capacity to do it ourselves?

Well, supply-managed dairy is exactly that. We make sure we have enough, that it is of high quality, and that it pays producers enough that they continue to produce, while having a good life.

We should also make sure we have high quality and reasonable cost housing too, right?

Originally Posted by theman23

Living wage? Aren't most dairy farmers multi-millionaires with annual incomes four times times the Canadian median?

They may take in $1 million a year, but after expenses of $900,000+ they don't have as much to live on. There is a difference between gross income and net income.

[theman23]

Uh of course, that’s obvious. Your numbers are made up though.
Their median net income was 160k in 2016. That’s not gross. Not bad for a group of high net worth individuals (median net worth is $5 million).
Basically a group of people have won the birth lottery and have somehow convinced the public they can barely put food on the table.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ah, yes.
How would that work for places that are not bike friendly?
It would be good to first start with removing parking minimums and getting the local council to become bike friendly.

In suburban Edmonton and I guess Edmonton in general folks I know that have condos, ones I've lived in there, we put our bikes in our storage lockers which were in the parkade so it's really just the same thing, but then guarantees I have space for my stuff in my storage room. From a square footage POV of the storage room you're not getting shafted on doubling it as a bike garage and storage room all in one. It's mandating guaranteed space for each.

Bikes are big and if you're lucky enough to be able to mount it in your storage room (or have a big enough storage room to begin with) your screwed for space and end up just putting it on your balcony.

[GenWhy?]

As well, if you remove parking minimums without guaranteeing potential new residents that they'll have enough space for bikes is a bit of a wrong step. You'd want to do both at the same time. Another option would be to continue each unit having a "stall" but allowing that resident to use it as they please (storage locker, canoe, bikes). Can't imagine that going over well with a condo board... which is a shame because it's the lowest hanging fruit.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by theman23

Uh of course, that’s obvious. Your numbers are made up though.
Their median net income was 160k in 2016. That’s not gross. Not bad for a group of high net worth individuals (median net worth is $5 million).
Basically a group of people have won the birth lottery and have somehow convinced the public they can barely put food on the table.

And selling milk at an inflated price to the food bank is acceptable.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

As well, if you remove parking minimums without guaranteeing potential new residents that they'll have enough space for bikes is a bit of a wrong step. You'd want to do both at the same time. Another option would be to continue each unit having a "stall" but allowing that resident to use it as they please (storage locker, canoe, bikes). Can't imagine that going over well with a condo board... which is a shame because it's the lowest hanging fruit.

Storage lockers are at a premium more than parking in a lot of downtown Vancouver condos.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by theman23

Uh of course, that’s obvious. Your numbers are made up though.
Their median net income was 160k in 2016. That’s not gross. Not bad for a group of high net worth individuals (median net worth is $5 million).
Basically a group of people have won the birth lottery and have somehow convinced the public they can barely put food on the table.

I was using a general way things work, but not with exact numbers.

That net, is still not actual as they still have to pay income taxes to the government.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

In suburban Edmonton and I guess Edmonton in general folks I know that have condos, ones I've lived in there, we put our bikes in our storage lockers which were in the parkade so it's really just the same thing, but then guarantees I have space for my stuff in my storage room. From a square footage POV of the storage room you're not getting shafted on doubling it as a bike garage and storage room all in one. It's mandating guaranteed space for each.

Bikes are big and if you're lucky enough to be able to mount it in your storage room (or have a big enough storage room to begin with) your screwed for space and end up just putting it on your balcony.

I now understand what you mean.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

As well, if you remove parking minimums without guaranteeing potential new residents that they'll have enough space for bikes is a bit of a wrong step. You'd want to do both at the same time. Another option would be to continue each unit having a "stall" but allowing that resident to use it as they please (storage locker, canoe, bikes). Can't imagine that going over well with a condo board... which is a shame because it's the lowest hanging fruit.

So, maybe finding a way that says that they either have enough space for 1 car per unit,or 2 bikes per unit secured storage. In other words, have a transition period as things ramp up with bikes.

[theman23]

Uh, everyone that earns an income pays income tax. You have to wonder what they’re putting in our milk with the extent people go to sell this sob story.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by theman23

Uh, everyone that earns an income pays income tax.

That was not the point, but... ok....

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Storage lockers are at a premium more than parking in a lot of downtown Vancouver condos.

Exactly that's why I would really appreciate more flexibility. The topic of this thread on "housing bubble" closely relates to giving the market more breathing room and giving it flexibility to adapt and respond, both new and old homes. When this are restricted (like ground level uses) you're heavily restricting the balance of a natural market to respond and correct itself. I think the underground uses are an accomplishable task. More easily say than creating corner stores in suburban monocultures.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That was not the point, but... ok....

Feel free to explain your point?

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I have family who are dairy farmers; let me assure you the whole “dairy cartel” nonsense is basically a fiction. Yes, there are problems with the supply management system, especially in terms of resistance to foreign products (not so much fluid milk, which I’m happy to see procured domestically, but foreign cheeses and other products). But the farmers themselves are not living gilded lives. They make a good living, typically with household incomes in the low six figure. Not sure why we should begrudge this, given the difficulty and importance of the work.

The actual wealth they have is 🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵 in equipment, livestock and property, secured by loans, like any small-business owner.

some make it sound like farmers are printing money.
Being a farmer has always been and will continue to be a tough freaking job! If it was easy money more people would do it.

We live in a society where the race to the bottom has resulted in people, of North America in particular, expecting goods for as cheap as humanly possible.
Meanwhile one of the richest families in the entire country, the Weston family of Loblaws (Loblaws, Superstore, No Frills, Zehrs, etc) was price fixing bread for years without anyone apparently noticing...until they got found out and had to print millions of $25 gift cards to pacify pissed off Canadians.

Meanwhile, a sector that practically prints money, Oil & Gas, gets $18,000,000,000 in subsidies.
https://thenarwhal.ca/canada-oil-gas-pandemic-subsidies-report/

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, maybe finding a way that says that they either have enough space for 1 car per unit,or 2 bikes per unit secured storage. In other words, have a transition period as things ramp up with bikes.

I think most cities have used ending or relaxing car minimums starting in their downtowns, and / or central neighbourhoods as a starting point. As a personal fan of free markets, it should be city-wide, but that's more of a political item. Vancouver does this with great success for rental buildings as the cost associated with excavation and building the previous minimum number was (still is ) outrageous. Parking minimums dictate you can only build on big wide lots to accommodate a well designed drive aisle, the right grade for the entry, depth of the site too for stalls and aisle width, etc.

For instance, "people" fear (usually renters) parking on their street because a property didn't provide all the stalls for the number of cars "produced" by that household / lot. A counter to this is that there is lots of street parking, and folks like are used to empty street parking and want to maintain that (impossible in a city, but whatever).

One could (easily, I'd say) that if I built a car-free building in a poor location, it wouldn't sell or rent out and that would be a huge financial liability.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by theman23

Feel free to explain your point?

That "net" you are talking of is the after expenses. Those expenses do not include income taxes.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think most cities have used ending or relaxing car minimums starting in their downtowns, and / or central neighbourhoods as a starting point. As a personal fan of free markets, it should be city-wide, but that's more of a political item. Vancouver does this with great success for rental buildings as the cost associated with excavation and building the previous minimum number was (still is ) outrageous. Parking minimums dictate you can only build on big wide lots to accommodate a well designed drive aisle, the right grade for the entry, depth of the site too for stalls and aisle width, etc.

For instance, "people" fear (usually renters) parking on their street because a property didn't provide all the stalls for the number of cars "produced" by that household / lot. A counter to this is that there is lots of street parking, and folks like are used to empty street parking and want to maintain that (impossible in a city, but whatever).

One could (easily, I'd say) that if I built a car-free building in a poor location, it wouldn't sell or rent out and that would be a huge financial liability.

That is why I suggested what I did, it allows the free market to sort out what is best.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sure, let's continue that one.

Everybody who has been drinking milk for 10+ years must be sold milk at $1/litre. Anybody who starts drinking today pays $3/litre.

Is that fair?

If the one paying $1 signed an agreement stipulating that that's the amount they'd be paying for milk, then yes, it is fair.

The purpose of rent control is to prevent tenants from facing unforeseen and unreasonable increases in the costs for their basic need of shelter. As a landlord, it's part of your due diligence to agree upon a rate that provides you with a profit while covering your costs and accounting for potential future costs - with annual allowable increases of 1.5-2% to account for routine inflation.