Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[casper]

Looks like the BC Government is trying to tackle the problem of it taking 2 years to get a building permit approved. They want to bring it down to a few months.

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news...op-shop-for-homebuilding-permits-6384624

The other thing that was interesting is they recently changed the strata property laws to remove the ability of a strata board to limit units from being rented as well as removing the ability to put minimum age requirement for residents. There is still an exemption that allows for seniors only developments.

That was one of the things I found weird moving from Saskatchewan to BC ten years ago. When I was shopping for a condo, in BC some of them have no-rental strata bylaws or some cap on the max number of units in the complex that can be rented. In Saskatchewan that was not legal.

The condo complex I am in currently has a minimum 19 age limit. I don't think would have been legal in Saskatchewan but it use to be here. It was a weird condition, there are a few people in the complex with to much time on their hands that would get all worked up about kids staying with their grand parents for the summer. The strata council would need to explain they are not considered residents but visitors.

Glad to see the ability to create these silly limitations removed.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by casper

Looks like the BC Government is trying to tackle the problem of it taking 2 years to get a building permit approved. They want to bring it down to a few months.

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news...op-shop-for-homebuilding-permits-6384624

The other thing that was interesting is they recently changed the strata property laws to remove the ability of a strata board to limit units from being rented as well as removing the ability to put minimum age requirement for residents. There is still an exemption that allows for seniors only developments.

That was one of the things I found weird moving from Saskatchewan to BC ten years ago. When I was shopping for a condo, in BC some of them have no-rental strata bylaws or some cap on the max number of units in the complex that can be rented. In Saskatchewan that was not legal.

The condo complex I am in currently has a minimum 19 age limit. I don't think would have been legal in Saskatchewan but it use to be here. It was a weird condition, there are a few people in the complex with to much time on their hands that would get all worked up about kids staying with their grand parents for the summer. The strata council would need to explain they are not considered residents but visitors.

Glad to see the ability to create these silly limitations removed.

In short: David Eby and the NDP made condo owners second class citizens. They won't force single family home owners to rent out their basements, but they will force strata corporations to allow rentals even if the vast majority of owners in the building don't want it. Just one more reason condo ownership is the worst kind of dwelling arrangement in Canada.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by whatnext

In short: David Eby and the NDP made condo owners second class citizens. They won't force single family home owners to rent out their basements, but they will force strata corporations to allow rentals even if the vast majority of owners in the building don't want it. Just one more reason condo ownership is the worst kind of dwelling arrangement in Canada.

My building has noticeably gone downhill as the proportion of tenants has gone up. The canned response to this is "what do you have against renters, you monster?" but a lot of the problems simply have to do with the structure not being used for its intended design:

- These are generally amateur landlords who own a few units and they tend not to do a great job of landlord stuff like communication or maintenance (instead of tenant <-> landlord it's tenant <-> landlord <-> strata for a lot of communication).
- The landlords are investor condo owners, not rental building owners. It is easier for them to evict their tenants and rent control measured encourage this, so there is a lot of turnover. This isn't good for the tenants. Every renter I know not in a rental building has some kind of running story about how they'll have to move out one day because of the owner's plans.
- Invariably there are problems with tenants doing things like creating grow-ops that start fires (never policed by the amateur landlord) or smashing their sprinklers. This causes damage to multiple units and involves multiple owners and the strata, whereas in a rental building it would just be the one owner. I doubt there's much success collecting from the tenants who cause damage. The tenant has a much lower stake than the adjacent owners do (damage deposit?).
- Since the investor condo owners want to flip the properties and a lot of buyers don't do good research, the investor condo owners are encouraged to vote down maintenance and amenity spending.

Maybe this will improve if prices come down and the attitude that condos generate free money goes away. I doubt they actually are a good investment for most people. They have high maintenance costs and they have not appreciated in price as rapidly as houses. In theory, the condo supply could shoot up much faster than the supply of lots for houses.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

In theory, the condo supply could shoot up much faster than the supply of lots for houses.

Exactly. The one thing that is truly "limited" is land. Long-term real estate investing will focus on that alone (as well as getting income from it due to its urban location combined with the fact that there's a structure on it with units that can be rented.)

(Personally, I've always avoided condos; you listed some of the good reasons why.)

This mode of ownership wasn't designed to be rental. The building is collectively owned, but you have some owners who are only there for flipping or milking, so their views clash with the ones who care about the building's long-term viability.

As you point out, as a sole owner for example, I can "milk" my building (no investments, get max net cash flow) or I can maintain it really well, or choose to be anywhere on that spectrum, but it's my problem only.

(It sometimes makes sense to milk a building; in fact I've been doing this for one that I intend to eventually demolish, as the zoning allows something that we'd almost call a tower here, and the building is in the way of that. But it's rented right now, and I have no plans to build a little tower there anytime soon, so I collect the rents from the existing semi-slummy structure for the time being.)

With a collectively-owned building, it would be different.

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

In short: David Eby and the NDP made condo owners second class citizens. They won't force single family home owners to rent out their basements, but they will force strata corporations to allow rentals even if the vast majority of owners in the building don't want it. Just one more reason condo ownership is the worst kind of dwelling arrangement in Canada.

I view it the other way around. They have given individual condo owners the freedom to live in their condos or rent them out as they see fit.

I am in a build that has never restricted rentals but use to have the 19 year limit.

We still have the rule in place that a rental must be over 30 days. That removed the airbnb rentals.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by casper

I view it the other way around. They have given individual condo owners the freedom to live in their condos or rent them out as they see fit.

I am in a build that has never restricted rentals but use to have the 19 year limit.

We still have the rule in place that a rental must be over 30 days. That removed the airbnb rentals.

And I bet your building looks more tired than one of the same age that restricts rentals. Allowing them simply puts more wear and tear on everything as the turnover of residents is usually faster than owners.

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And I bet your building looks more tired than one of the same age that restricts rentals. Allowing them simply puts more wear and tear on everything as the turnover of residents is usually faster than owners.

Actually it is not bad for a concrete tower from 1978. Though we pay enough in strata fees that there is good upkeep. There is also a move in fee of some sort.

I don't disagree it likely gets more wear and tear with the higher turnover.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by someone123

My building has noticeably gone downhill as the proportion of tenants has gone up. The canned response to this is "what do you have against renters, you monster?" but a lot of the problems simply have to do with the structure not being used for its intended design:

- These are generally amateur landlords who own a few units and they tend not to do a great job of landlord stuff like communication or maintenance (instead of tenant <-> landlord it's tenant <-> landlord <-> strata for a lot of communication).
- The landlords are investor condo owners, not rental building owners. It is easier for them to evict their tenants and rent control measured encourage this, so there is a lot of turnover. This isn't good for the tenants. Every renter I know not in a rental building has some kind of running story about how they'll have to move out one day because of the owner's plans.
- Invariably there are problems with tenants doing things like creating grow-ops that start fires (never policed by the amateur landlord) or smashing their sprinklers. This causes damage to multiple units and involves multiple owners and the strata, whereas in a rental building it would just be the one owner. I doubt there's much success collecting from the tenants who cause damage. The tenant has a much lower stake than the adjacent owners do (damage deposit?).
- Since the investor condo owners want to flip the properties and a lot of buyers don't do good research, the investor condo owners are encouraged to vote down maintenance and amenity spending.

Maybe this will improve if prices come down and the attitude that condos generate free money goes away. I doubt they actually are a good investment for most people. They have high maintenance costs and they have not appreciated in price as rapidly as houses. In theory, the condo supply could shoot up much faster than the supply of lots for houses.

Exactly. It's not that all renters are "bad" but they have less invested in the place, literally. The flip side is the people renting to them don't care about it as their "home" and will be less willing to invest more than the bare minimum. And it is left to volunteer condo boards to deal with the fallout.

If anything, all Eby has done is set in motion an increase in condo prices as now all buildings will be wide open for investor owners. If one can afford it, buy a house. You have far more latitude and freedom to do what you want with what you own.

[jonny24]

Wait, owners were resticted to 19, or anyone who lived there?

I'd consider a kid-free building a pretty attractive "pro" if I was comparing properties.

[SignalHillHiker]

Love this backyard. House is a bit dated inside for $350K, especially with only two bedrooms, but the yard is probably as deep as mine.







https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/25193947/168-pleasant-street-st-johns

[Architype]

^ I can see why it is valued higher, it's 3 stories, with all the renos, and a better area I guess, but you are getting a plain modern interior instead of one with any character.

[urbandreamer]

^Take the ugliest cheapest materials - grey paint, Home Depot flooring and appliances, Amazon lights - and charge a premium for it. Gross. I truly loathe this destruction of Canada's architectural/design heritage.

That house isn't worth $200,000.

[ScreamingViking]

Anyone know why lio45 was suspended? I know he got into a few debates over time, but I found his perspectives from being a building owner interesting and useful.

[le calmar]

The interior looks nice, but yeah, for that kind of house I’d see why someone would want something less generic and with more character.

As for lio’s suspension, something that happened in the CE section perhaps? Things tend to get heated over there

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Anyone know why lio45 was suspended? I know he got into a few debates over time, but I found his perspectives from being a building owner interesting and useful.

Lio, if you can see this, blink once if things are okay, but twice if you need help.

[thurmas]

I miss Lio's perspective on here as well. He was a voice of reason in the age of justinflation in many ways.

[Truenorth00]

Let's be honest. This has been going on in Canada too...

• Video Link

[Coldrsx]

Province (BC) promises to speed up its own approvals for housing

"The goal is to reduce that dramatically to, I mean ultimately, a goal of months for approval from the current wait time of (two) years. — Premier David Eby.

Author of the article: Derrick Penner

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/bc-aims-to-speed-up-permitting-for-housing

[whatnext]

I think it s useful every so often to post graphs like this, reminding people just how out of touch with ordinary Canadians' incomes our housing prices are:

[IMG]housingprices by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]

Source: Daniel de Mellis on Twitter

[Truenorth00]

Also useful to understand how painful the inevitable and eventual reversion to mean, will be.