BC Political Discussion: Election 2020 and Beyond

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by madog222

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0059-000851

I also dunno if this will be any more severe than the Metro Plans.

Maybe this will just end up being enforcement of the Metro Van housing targets (which some municipalities are lagging behind.)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

- snip -

All three levels of government already own a decent chunk of Metro Van. There’s no reason taxes on developers can’t continue; this reads more like the province cutting out the middleman - BC Housing which only provides subsidies, and non-profits like Atira which definitely waste money - and doing the construction and management themselves.

Even your pro-market editorial admits Singapore has, quote, “done a better job than the U.S. of using housing to build and transfer wealth across generations.” It goes on to say that the main downside is lack of available space for non-families and foreign temp workers (BC has plenty of private sector property and 2-3% as many temp workers, so not a problem) and the main obstacle for translating that model to North America is bureaucracy and NIMBYs at the municipal level (which the NDP are currently bulldozing over, so also not a problem).

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

All three levels of government already own a decent chunk of Metro Van. There’s no reason taxes on developers can’t continue; this reads more like the province cutting out the middleman - BC Housing which only provides subsidies, and non-profits like Atira which definitely waste money - and doing the construction and management themselves.

How much of that land is parks or undevelopable mountains above 12,000 ft?

Again, this is why the BC Conservatives' plan was stupid too.

Most public land near Cities is completely useless for development. This is BC, not Alberta.
And I seriously doubt people would be happy with say, the LSCR being turned into public housing (technically Metro Van-owned land, but still.)
Even the CMHC Lands are pretty controversial.



BC Housing should continue to focus on building social housing where it can instead of trying to expand its authority and overstretch itself.

TransLink made more sense, since that would allow it to build developments over its own stations and OMCs during construction (or at least putting in provisions for it), rather than having to cooperate with developers to do it.

Basically, it had excess public land that could be used and otherwise would be much less likely to be used.

Even your pro-market editorial admits Singapore has, quote, “done a better job than the U.S. of using housing to build and transfer wealth across generations.” It goes on to say that the main downside is lack of space for foreign temp workers (Vancouver has plenty of private sector property and 2-3% as many temp workers, so not a problem) and the main obstacle for translating that model to North America is bureaucracy and NIMBYs at the municipal level (which the NDP are currently bulldozing over, so also not a problem).

Well yeah, housing is a major problem for NA.
NDP is doing some good things, but then they do very dumb things.
Metro also was ahead of NDP by decades, it's just that the Province has more enforcement authority.

I would argue that's a consequence of too much regulation rather than too much, since I don't trust the few cases of success of public housing over the many other cases of failure.

It's kind of like sovereign wealth funds. They work- sometimes. Not a reliable model, though (see: Alberta).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Not sure why they're targeting Abbotsford here.
They've been fairly pro-development.

Mission is far stupider in terms of its policies (and in general- see the Silverdale disaster), though part of that is trying to redevelop the industrial waterfront during an industrial lands crisis.

New Westminster too, though that's not in the Valley.

Because this has nothing to do with Industrial land?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

- snip -

Do some homework and you'll find plenty. The feds own Granville Island and the undeveloped part of Olympic Village, and used to own the Plaza of Nations; the VSB owns Kingsgate Mall; TransLink owns depots all around the metro, one of which is currently under redevelopment; the city owns enough property to keep giving it back to the MST or to non-profits like Atira; the province does the same thing.

In addition, BC also owned Little Mountain and Pearson-Dogwood, which they sold off to private-sector developers for a song in order to develop social housing; the former’s owners find it more convenient to sit on the property and let the value of the empty greenfield go up, and the latter’s still owe the province half the money. Clearly, there’s plenty of public land within the metro, but which is just being wasted on third parties.

BC Housing doesn’t build most (if any) of its own stuff. It gives subsidies to businesses and organizations that do, and those are often the same kind of plutocrats mentioned above. That’s not working, so obviously the NDP now wants to try something different - there's plenty of evidence that not all social housing ends up as projects.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The feds own Granville Island and the undeveloped part of Olympic Village, while the city owns enough property to keep giving it back to the MST or to non-profits; the province does the same thing. In addition, BC also owned Little Mountain and Pearson-Dogwood, which they sold off to private-sector developers for cheap to develop social housing; the former’s owners find it more convenient to sit on the property and let the value go up, and the latter’s still owe the province half the money.

Clearly, there’s plenty of public land within the metro, it's just being wasted.

BC Housing doesn’t build any of its own stuff. It gives subsidies to businesses and organizations that do, and those are often the same kind of plutocrats mentioned above. That’s not working, so obviously the NDP now wants to try something different - there's plenty of evidence that not all social housing ends up as projects.

Well duh, but the vast majority is still privately held.

Also, they have to give a big chunk of the excess lands available to FN (as stated above), so how much is actually available for BC Housing nowadays is kind of iffy.

The governments are also really slow in actually developing public lands (again, the largest owner of surface parking lots in DT Vancouver is CoV) or selling them off when it was supposed to.
See: Cariboo Heights, CMHC Lands, Poplar Landing, Aldergrove Naval Radio Station (which is basically completely empty nowadays), etc.


Also, no one is touching Granville Island to turn it into any form of housing anytime soon.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Because this has nothing to do with Industrial land?

It does, but I pointed out Silverdale too, which Mission completely failed to do anything with after decades.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

- snip -

Never said it wasn't, but there's no reason to sell off what is government-owned land for the promise of housing affordability... when they can just try for affordability themselves. Granville Island's not up for development, but it is federal property.

They do. Others, like the ones handed off to nonprofits, don't have to be; there's plenty of those changing hands all the time. The government definitely needs to make their own developments move faster, and so far, it looks like this administration wants to.

Pearson-Dogwood is growing, yes... and BC is still owed $135 million for selling it to Onni, which could've gone to fund other things and which we'll probably never get back. Maybe the private sector shouldn't necessarily be the best and only solution.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by madog222

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0059-000851

And will David Eby and the NDP force developers to build?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And will David Eby and the NDP force developers to build?

I thought your problem was that developers were too eager to build?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I thought your problem was that developers were too eager to build?

I'm not discussing my opinion. My questions is: if developers don't want to build for numerous reasons will the NDP force them too?

Perhaps they believe it will "just happen", like waving their magic wand to limit rent increases to below inflation and assuming there are no downstream consequences.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

My questions is: if developers don't want to build for numerous reasons will the NDP force them too?

That's an oxymoron in itself, which is my point. I couldn't care less about your opinion; the NDP doesn't have to force developers to do jack when they want to build here no matter what the government does. Rent increase caps are nickels and dimes as far as Onni or Westbank are concerned.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Never said it wasn't, but there's no reason to sell off what is government-owned land for the promise of housing affordability... when they can just try for affordability themselves. Granville Island's not up for development, but it is federal property.

They do. Others, like the ones handed off to nonprofits, don't have to be; there's plenty of those changing hands all the time. The government definitely needs to make their own developments move faster, and so far, it looks like this administration wants to.

Pearson-Dogwood is growing, yes... and BC is still owed $135 million for selling it to Onni, which could've gone to fund other things and which we'll probably never get back. Maybe the private sector shouldn't necessarily be the best and only solution.

Maybe, but don't try to copy Singapore and Vienna and try to expand that to non-affordable housing.
That's definitely not going to work, and that was what they're proposing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's the same difference: develop the government-owned properties (or buy new ones) in sufficient numbers, rent or lease them at below-market rates, watch the market cool off as less people are willing to spend $2k/bed each month.

Obviously it's not going to fix housing all by itself when most properties are private-sector - that's where the relaxed zoning and targets come in - but it definitely helps to have alternate options. So far, we've relied on the free market as the only way to solve the affordability crisis, and so far, it hasn't.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm not discussing my opinion. My questions is: if developers don't want to build for numerous reasons will the NDP force them too?

Perhaps they believe it will "just happen", like waving their magic wand to limit rent increases to below inflation and assuming there are no downstream consequences.

As I recall, you were extremely critical of the Little Mountain deal. As we know, Holborn got to hold the site after the BC Liberal government 'sold' it to them, without developing it, or even paying for it at the time. Clearly any partnership between a developer and a public agency, involving the development of public land, could have a time clause to 'force' the development. It could include a non-returnable deposit that they forfeit if they don't develop (as well as losing the development rights).

If private developers don't want to develop privately owned land, they don't currently face anything to encourage development. I recall you've been critical of the 'meanwhile parks' that pop up to reduce taxes. The Province could change that, and while they have indicated they don't want vacant land taxed at higher rates, they could change their mind about that too.

[s211]

My take.

1) Singapore isn't a democracy. Nowhere close.

2) NY Times very recently reported that about 80% of Vienna's population qualifies for public housing. Here's another take on that story.

https://reason.com/2023/05/30/dont-buy-the-social-housing-hype/

Let's also take a look at the Vienna's entire tax regime, and see how much taxes go to subsidize far too many people.

Remember when the City wanted to study the Berlin proposal to expropriate all private-owned apartment buildings and take them over? Thankfully, really set in, both in Berlin and the City.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Maybe, but don't try to copy Singapore and Vienna and try to expand that to non-affordable housing.
That's definitely not going to work, and that was what they're proposing.

There are examples in Vancouver where the City has done exactly that, very successfully. 1 Kingsway is market rental, and the rent pays for the mortgage that built the community centre and library on the site. C-Side in Coal Harbour has market rentals that help cross-subsidize the njon-market family rtentals on the lower floors of the building. Both buildings are still owned by the City, and both provide market rent units.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As I recall, you were extremely critical of the Little Mountain deal. As we know, Holborn got to hold the site after the BC Liberal government 'sold' it to them, without developing it, or even paying for it at the time. Clearly any partnership between a developer and a public agency, involving the development of public land, could have a time clause to 'force' the development. It could include a non-returnable deposit that they forfeit if they don't develop (as well as losing the development rights).

If private developers don't want to develop privately owned land, they don't currently face anything to encourage development. I recall you've been critical of the 'meanwhile parks' that pop up to reduce taxes. The Province could change that, and while they have indicated they don't want vacant land taxed at higher rates, they could change their mind about that too.

Those are both good ideas. So if the NDP is so hellbent to jumpstart building it begs the question why they haven't removed the ridiculous dog park/community garden tax dodge.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's the same difference: develop the government-owned properties (or buy new ones) in sufficient numbers, rent or lease them at below-market rates, watch the market cool off as less people are willing to spend $2k/bed each month.

Obviously it's not going to fix housing all by itself when most properties are private-sector - that's where the relaxed zoning and targets come in - but it definitely helps to have alternate options. So far, we've relied on the free market as the only way to solve the affordability crisis, and so far, it hasn't.

Again, that's not the Signapore or Vienna Model.
That's not what they're talking about.

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are examples in Vancouver where the City has done exactly that, very successfully. 1 Kingsway is market rental, and the rent pays for the mortgage that built the community centre and library on the site. C-Side in Coal Harbour has market rentals that help cross-subsidize the njon-market family rtentals on the lower floors of the building. Both buildings are still owned by the City, and both provide market rent units.

Which BC Housing shouldn't focus on, because that land could be used for more affordable housing first, and there's probably not enough surplus land to do both.


And yeah, there are lots of loopholes that developers use to keep holding their land.
Also, pretty sure that things like the Concord Park at NEFC are well used.
It's not as good as getting the development built, but it still provides a public use, subsidized by the developer, so I'm not sure if the 'park loophole' should really be closed.
It's still 'useful', and is better than it being gravel.

It's just that in most cases, the land used for the loophole is so small that it's not really useful as a park, but there are a lot of urban, government-owned parks like that.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's an oxymoron in itself, which is my point. I couldn't care less about your opinion; the NDP doesn't have to force developers to do jack when they want to build here no matter what the government does. Rent increase caps are nickels and dimes as far as Onni or Westbank are concerned.

Apparently you do care or you wouldn't have mentioned my opinion in the first place. And if developers are so keen to build why has there been a vacant lot at Robson & Broughton for decades? Why is Little Mountain unbuilt?

Surprisingly, it seems to come as news to you as a renter that there are plenty of units rented out by much smaller outfits than Westbank or Onni.