BC Political Discussion: Election 2020 and Beyond

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Sheba

BC Budget 2023 is online.

Hmm, to improve the housing situation should we increase supply by legislating housing targets, or increase demand by subsidizing rents which will invariably be absorbed into market rates...

Hmm...

Hard decision, hope they made the right one.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Sheba

BC Budget 2023 is online.

So after the prudent and pragmatic Horgan years, Eby takes us back to the bad old days of tax and spend NDP orthodoxy. Big carbon tax increase for businesses and nothing for homeowners.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Great budget, finally getting us to europe in terms of quality of public services.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Hmm, to improve the housing situation should we increase supply by legislating housing targets, or increase demand by subsidizing rents which will invariably be absorbed into market rates...

Hmm...

Hard decision, hope they made the right one.

Yeah, this is extremely frustrating, political easy route, but bad overall. Literally Econ101. Although I'm not sure housing targets would be the right answer, I'd rather see them attack the wall of municipal zoning and red tape that holds back supply. But at least something on the supply side!

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GMD

Yeah, this is extremely frustrating, political easy route, but bad overall. Literally Econ101. Although I'm not sure housing targets would be the right answer, I'd rather see them attack the wall of municipal zoning and red tape that holds back supply. But at least something on the supply side!

Housing targets are a gentler solution than forcing zoning changes on cities. It lets the municipalities have more freedom in how they want to allocate housing. If that means a municipality chooses to meet targets by relaxing zoning then that's great. If that means a municipality won't budge on SFH zoning but is willing to densify the urban core, that's alright too. I'm super in support of zoning reform, but blanket rezoning policy is a much more bitter pill to swallow in some municipalities than "build more, but we're not going to tell you how to do it".

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GMD

Yeah, this is extremely frustrating, political easy route, but bad overall. Literally Econ101. Although I'm not sure housing targets would be the right answer, I'd rather see them attack the wall of municipal zoning and red tape that holds back supply. But at least something on the supply side!

Even after the BC Liberal's disastrous moves of selling Little Mountain to one of Malaysia's richest men and the Oakridge Transit Depot to the UK's richest man (anyone see a pattern there) doesn't the BC gov't still have property in MetroVancouver where they could build whatever they want, free of municipal control?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Housing targets are a gentler solution than forcing zoning changes on cities. It lets the municipalities have more freedom in how they want to allocate housing. If that means a municipality chooses to meet targets by relaxing zoning then that's great. If that means a municipality won't budge on SFH zoning but is willing to densify the urban core, that's alright too. I'm super in support of zoning reform, but blanket rezoning policy is a much more bitter pill to swallow in some municipalities than "build more, but we're not going to tell you how to do it".

And provincial overreach can be disastrous if implemented wrong. Take Ontario, where Doug Ford's new provincial zoning does very little to densify existing SFH neighbourhoods... and very much to expand those neighbourhoods into reserved greenfields, thereby increasing the number of car-driving suburbanites (coincidentally, his voter base).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Even after the BC Liberal's disastrous moves of selling Little Mountain to one of Malaysia's richest men and the Oakridge Transit Depot to the UK's richest man (anyone see a pattern there) doesn't the BC gov't still have property in MetroVancouver where they could build whatever they want, free of municipal control?

The BC Government didn't own Oakridge Transit Centre, it was TransLink that sold it, and it was sold to Intergulf / Modern Green, neither of them with any links to the UK.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GMD

Yeah, this is extremely frustrating, political easy route, but bad overall. Literally Econ101. Although I'm not sure housing targets would be the right answer, I'd rather see them attack the wall of municipal zoning and red tape that holds back supply. But at least something on the supply side!

Municipal zoning and red tape aren't holding back supply. It might be in a few locations, but it isn't in the majority of Greater Vancouver. There are tens of thousands of approved units that aren't (yet) being developed, for a variety of reasons, but municipal approval isn't overall the reason why they aren't being buolt faster.

There's some question whether the development industry could build much more than they are. In the 1990s, annual housing starts were 16,015, and in the 2000s it was 15,360 units. It was slightly higher in the 2010s at 21,655 a year. In both 2021 and 2022 there were 26,000 housing starts in Metro Vancouver. So we're already seeing developers building more than they have over the past three decades.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Housing targets are a gentler solution than forcing zoning changes on cities. It lets the municipalities have more freedom in how they want to allocate housing. If that means a municipality chooses to meet targets by relaxing zoning then that's great. If that means a municipality won't budge on SFH zoning but is willing to densify the urban core, that's alright too. I'm super in support of zoning reform, but blanket rezoning policy is a much more bitter pill to swallow in some municipalities than "build more, but we're not going to tell you how to do it".

I agree with you, but fear that housing targets would simply be ignored by many municipalities with no consequences other than the municipalities that do try to meet the targets getting (rightfully) angry with those that don't. Sure the municipalities won't like zoning changes, especially the cities that would ignore/subvert housing targets, but they've had their chance and they've blown it already, in my opinion.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Municipal zoning and red tape aren't holding back supply. It might be in a few locations, but it isn't in the majority of Greater Vancouver. There are tens of thousands of approved units that aren't (yet) being developed, for a variety of reasons, but municipal approval isn't overall the reason why they aren't being built faster.

There's some question whether the development industry could build much more than they are. In the 1990s, annual housing starts were 16,015, and in the 2000s it was 15,360 units. It was slightly higher in the 2010s at 21,655 a year. In both 2021 and 2022 there were 26,000 housing starts in Metro Vancouver. So we're already seeing developers building more than they have over the past three decades.

I simply don't buy this. For example, how many SFD in Metro Vancouver have been torn down only to build another SFD that is three times the size. If zoning allowed it, they all could (and most of them would) have been rebuilt as triplexes instead of monster homes with 9 bathrooms for 2 people, and it wouldn't have taken any extra construction work.

And I've read the stories of people trying to build laneway homes or duplexes and so on, and how they've faced endless delays and costs from municipal departments that take months to respond to queries and so on.

And I've seen first hand how as soon as a neighbourhood gets upzoned, all of a sudden fencing is going up all over and every lot is getting rebuilt into more houses.

Just because there is a backlog of approved 50 story towers that the developers are slow-walking to ensure they all make money, doesn't mean there isn't more development that could take place, especially on the smaller scale, if there was less red tape and greater zoning approval.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Great budget, finally getting us to europe in terms of quality of public services.

I found the move on contraception exciting.

Free contraception of most types (Pill, Sub-dermal implant, IUDs and Plan B (morning after pill); along with being able to obtain applicable contraception at the pharmacy w/o a prescription is the kind of smart public policy that will pay for itself.

Fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions, lower social intervention costs. I hope that idea set spreads across the country.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GMD

I simply don't buy this. For example, how many SFD in Metro Vancouver have been torn down only to build another SFD that is three times the size. If zoning allowed it, they all could (and most of them would) have been rebuilt as triplexes instead of monster homes with 9 bathrooms for 2 people, and it wouldn't have taken any extra construction work.

And I've read the stories of people trying to build laneway homes or duplexes and so on, and how they've faced endless delays and costs from municipal departments that take months to respond to queries and so on.

And I've seen first hand how as soon as a neighbourhood gets upzoned, all of a sudden fencing is going up all over and every lot is getting rebuilt into more houses.

Just because there is a backlog of approved 50 story towers that the developers are slow-walking to ensure they all make money, doesn't mean there isn't more development that could take place, especially on the smaller scale, if there was less red tape and greater zoning approval.

The approved developments are not just 50 storey towers. Just in the City of Vancouver, other threads here have recently noted the 4 storey rental building just being built on Renfrew St - approved in 2016. Little Mountain was approved years ago, but the developer has only just started construction, and the same developer has an approved rental building site opposite Woodward's they've sat on for over 5 years. London Drugs pulled their East Hastings development years ago, and it's only just returned with a new design. On the west side, Solterra have sat on a vacant site on W 7th for over ten years, have redesigned it and still haven't built it. There are no doubt many other examples across the region.

There's a shortage of trades, difficulties getting materials, and still there's more housing being built than on average annually in the past thirty years.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The BC Government didn't own Oakridge Transit Centre, it was TransLink that sold it, and it was sold to Intergulf / Modern Green, neither of them with any links to the UK.

The hoarding up there now says Grosvenor?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The hoarding up there now says Grosvenor?

The developers who bought it sold it on.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The developers who bought it sold it on.

So I assume they got more from Grosvenor than the Province of BC received initially?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So I assume they got more from Grosvenor than the Province of BC received initially?

It was TransLink, not the Province of BC who sold the site. You do know they're not the same thing?

You can assume anything you like. Grosvenor are a private company, so nothing has been published that I've seen. The company said it financed its acquisition in 2022 with HSBC, which leads a syndication of five banks (BMO, CIBC, RBC, and Desjardins) providing the land loan financing. So the wealth of the Duke of Westminster wasn't a factor.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It was TransLink, not the Province of BC who sold the site. You do know they're not the same thing?

You can assume anything you like. Grosvenor are a private company, so nothing has been published that I've seen. The company said it financed its acquisition in 2022 with HSBC, which leads a syndication of five banks (BMO, CIBC, RBC, and Desjardins) providing the land loan financing. So the wealth of the Duke of Westminster wasn't a factor.

That's splitting hairs though isn't it? Translink is a creation of the Province of BC and survives only though cash handed over to it by the Province. I'm just curious to know why they sold a piece of property for likely less than the market valued it.

[jollyburger]

Well the province did directly offer a mortgage to finance the sale of the OTC? (No clue why they mention BC Transit)

B.C. Transit, a Crown corporation, sold its 14-acre transit centre across the street from the Oakridge mall to Intergulf-Modern Green Development Corp., which was offered a 2.1-per-cent, eight-year mortgage by the province.

https://vancouversun.com/business/real-e...rplus-land-did-taxpayers-get-a-good-deal

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Well the province did directly offer a mortgage to finance the sale of the OTC? (No clue why they mention BC Transit)

Because they were wrong? Here' the TransLink press release. The province presumably helped out so that TransLink were able to get their contribution together for the new transit lines.

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm just curious to know why they sold a piece of property for likely less than the market valued it.

Is that tin foil tight today? At $440m the developers agreed to pay full market value - maybe a bit more than they should have.