Housing Supply Act Discussion - Implementation & Outcomes

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Private development will take care of building expensive units for those who can afford them. We have seen that is not enough. Only the senior levels of government can provide that type of housing, whether it is using the Vienna model or something else.

The notion that developers will lower their prices if only they could get approvals from municipalities faster is laughably naive.

You're naive and delusional to the point where you've never even bothered to check if what you believe in is backed by any shred of evidence. Demand for new or costly housing doesn't disappear if you don't build. People with money just end up buying and renting properties poor people would have been able to otherwise.



https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog...s%20to%20climb.

[WarrenC12]

That Calgary chart is wild.

[Migrant_Coconut]

To nobody's surprise except Alberta's, boom-bust economies aren't very stable.

[fredinno]

About the money they're planning on giving out- how much will this cost if they're expanding the scope so much?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

You're naive and delusional to the point where you've never even bothered to check if what you believe in is backed by any shred of evidence. Demand for new or costly housing doesn't disappear if you don't build. People with money just end up buying and renting properties poor people would have been able to otherwise.
.

I'm not sure how you interpret the Vancouver chart to support the Housing Supply Act? It shows that despite the fact rental vacancies have been tight in Vancouver (and rents high) for years, developers haven't expressed much of an interest in vastly increasing supply (vs condos) and built little until recent incentives led to an increase. Faster approvals will do nothing significant to change the economics of rental construction. If governments want to meaningfully increase the supply, they'll have to lead it not merely try and legislate it.

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm not sure how you interpret the Vancouver chart to support the Housing Supply Act? It shows that despite the fact rental vacancies have been tight in Vancouver (and rents high) for years, developers haven't expressed much of an interest in vastly increasing supply (vs condos) and built little until recent incentives led to an increase. Faster approvals will do nothing significant to change the economics of rental construction. If governments want to meaningfully increase the supply, they'll have to lead it not merely try and legislate it.

OH GEEEZ, I WONDER WHY THAT IS? There couldnt be any specific reason why the supply response is so weak in Vancouver

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

OH GEEE, I WONDER WHY THAT IS. THERE COULDNT BE ANY SPECIFIC REASON WHY SUPPLY RESPONSE IS WEAK

From what I understand (need to keep CC happy) Vancouver does spot rezoning on everything to be able to better control development.
Which isn't helping things, and is part of the reason Vancouver is so overwhelmed with developers trying to talk with the City.

Cambie did some pre-rezoning, but not enough.

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by fredinno

From what I understand (need to keep CC happy) Vancouver does spot rezoning on everything to be able to better control development.
Which isn't helping things, and is part of the reason Vancouver is so overwhelmed with developers trying to talk with the City.

Cambie did some pre-rezoning, but not enough.

By better control development, they actually functionally stunted development into a few corridors causing massive land inflation on those limits properties and massively reduced the ability to build housing permanently unless it's a mcmansion, which very conveniently never seem to be turned down. But of course, the untermensch that are non property owners should only be allowed to live in the dungeons of mcmansions paying the ubermensch's mortgages while building 0 equity of their down. Then, we must all pretend like that decision has nothing to do with housing costs or rent, and that we are all good people who just don't want the evil developers to run all over us poor multimillionaire land owners

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

OH GEEEZ, I WONDER WHY THAT IS? There couldnt be any specific reason why the supply response is so weak in Vancouver

Gee, I wonder why developers chose to build mostly market condos on those areas that large multifamily were allowed? But no doubt the waving of the magic NDP housing wand will change all that....

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Gee, I wonder why developers chose to build mostly market condos on those areas that large multifamily were allowed? But no doubt the waving of the magic NDP housing wand will change all that....

Probably because literally all forms of housing are in dire need right now, and up until recently, low interest rates made condos more affordable?

You're surprised developers are going for the highest margin first?

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Probably because literally all forms of housing are in dire need right now, and up until recently, low interest rates made condos more affordable?

You're surprised developers are going for the highest margin first?

Leftists are always surprised to learn supply and demand are real. That brand new condos in a market with 0.5% vacancy rate are more expensive than what a 20 year old condo would cost in a market with a 7% vacancy rate boggles their minds. They have no idea it takes more than rhetoric to go from the first scenario to the 2nd


I'm sure there have even been leftists that argued against planting wheat during price jumps until they force the farmers into planting affordable only wheat

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

Leftists are always surprised to learn supply and demand are real. That brand new condos in a market with 0.5% vacancy rate are more expensive than what a 20 year old condo would cost in a market with a 7% vacancy rate boggles their minds. They have no idea it takes more than rhetoric to go from the first scenario to the 2nd


I'm sure there have even been leftists that argued against planting wheat during price jumps until they force the farmers into planting affordable only wheat

You don't realise that during poor crop years farmers start only planting luxury wheat! (Nevermind that it's just regular wheat that costs a lot more because the supply is so low...)

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

Leftists are always surprised to learn supply and demand are real. That brand new condos in a market with 0.5% vacancy rate are more expensive than what a 20 year old condo would cost in a market with a 7% vacancy rate boggles their minds. They have no idea it takes more than rhetoric to go from the first scenario to the 2nd


I'm sure there have even been leftists that argued against planting wheat during price jumps until they force the farmers into planting affordable only wheat

LOL, you're dissing "leftists" to defend an NDP government trying to order what gets built?

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, you're dissing "leftists" to defend an NDP government trying to order what gets built?

The one thing right-wing and left-wing individuals agree on (if they're rich and own their own home) is NIMBYism. Suburbanites in SF and Dallas may not agree on much, but neither group wants a bunch of social housing (or any dense housing, really) built in Atherton or University Park. So yes, I think both left- and right-wing NIMBYs will likely be annoyed at this policy regardless of which party they supported in the last election.

I think when Greetingsfromcanada mentions "leftists", they are referring to your idea that the government should build all the affordable housing and that the market can never address the affordability issue.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

The one thing right-wing and left-wing individuals agree on (if they're rich and own their own home) is NIMBYism. Suburbanites in SF and Dallas may not agree on much, but neither group wants a bunch of social housing (or any dense housing, really) built in Atherton or University Park. So yes, I think both left- and right-wing NIMBYs will likely be annoyed at this policy regardless of which party they supported in the last election.

I think when Greetingsfromcanada mentions "leftists", they are referring to your idea that the government should build all the affordable housing and that the market can never address the affordability issue.

If only we could have the government build some housing and the market build some housing, but guess that'll never happen since we must blindly abide by a political dichotomy of "leftists" and "rightists"...

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, you're dissing "leftists" to defend an NDP government trying to order what gets built?

This NDP government is promoting a more free market for housing (we all know that's what this exercise is). Sounds very un-left but results in major benefits for those on the left. Would really want to see some leftist stuff like social housing in this overall plan, but I won't get my hopes up.

I think we can all do better in this young thread to keep things from getting too unhinged.

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, you're dissing "leftists" to defend an NDP government trying to order what gets built?

Yes. Why? Because leftists are the bane of good housing policy. Even within the BCNDP, for years, MPs readily accepted Andy Yan's empty condo theory and chinese money theory of housing and built policy after policy around that simple lie. Yes, there were some empty condo units. No, they were never more than a fraction needed to end the housing crisis.


The harm done by people who wanted easy answers is incalculable. There is no housing policy that can fit Canada's needs without massive market reforms. And that's what these policies are. Market reforms. It's not an "order to build". It is literally just letting housing be built when the goddamn fiefdoms that are municipalities imposed government mandated scarcity

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by mcj

If only we could have the government build some housing and the market build some housing, but guess that'll never happen since we must blindly abide by a political dichotomy of "leftists" and "rightists"...

That is quite literally the BCNDP plan. Build more market, build more social housing. They talk about it all the time

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

The harm done by people who wanted easy answers is incalculable. There is no housing policy that can fit Canada's needs without massive market reforms. And that's what these policies are. Market reforms. It's not an "order to build". It is literally just letting housing be built when the goddamn fiefdoms that are municipalities imposed government mandated scarcity

You seem to be suggesting the current Provincial government's attempt to reduce municipal delay in zoning for, or approving housing isn't enough.

Can you explain what market reforms you think the Provincial government should introduce that would get more housing built?

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You seem to be suggesting the current Provincial government's attempt to reduce municipal delay in zoning for, or approving housing isn't enough.

Can you explain what market reforms you think the Provincial government should introduce that would get more housing built?

Cap fees on newbuilds to a set amount that has to be justified and approved by the province. At the very least stop forcing apartment dwellers to subsidize detached homeowners. Introduce a land value tax to replace the property tax. This will encourage developers to actually build ASAP instead of sitting on land.

Allow unlimited FSR, 3.5 storey 8 plexes to be built in Vancouver on every lot. Allow 12 storey apartments within 1km of any 10 minute transit service. Allow single staircase buildings to be built again. Allow point access blocks to be built.

Allow BC crown corporations and translink to simply ignore even these zoning laws and let them build market rate at an advantaged position and use the proceeds as a permanent cash stream to build provincially owned housing. For translink, use as a cash stream to supplement operating or capital costs


If I had it my way, I would deregulate zoning further. But I'm being reasonable here.