Vancouver Civic Election 2018

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Nice rambling post. I bolded all of the parts that are laughable BS. Also the part where you're astroturfing for the NPA.

Perhaps do some research before you reply...since I'm in the Real Estate industry I know what I'm saying.

The fees and contributions do go down depending on where your building and what. But to get Comprehensive Development so you can build a tower expect to shell out big bucks. Amenity contributions range between $400-$600. You then need to shell out a portion towards social housing, taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc. There is no set process so your forced to hire someone familiar with the city and what they generally accept before submitting a plan to them. When I said $800/sqft that was being conservative.

The article below helps explain the costs behind a new house. This doesn't even include the taxes, sales taxes and fees too.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...s-in-vancouver

The city has now let the landscaping department review applications for construction as well, so they now micromanage your landscaping down to the placement of individual vines and flowers. You'll see that as per the below article.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ning-1.3527971

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by misher

Perhaps do some research before you reply...since I'm in the Real Estate industry I know what I'm saying.

Good to know you’re not biased in any way.

Could have easily predicted your line of work based on your love for money launderers and desire to tear down all of the policies now in place and go back to the “good old days” of your ilk and the Liberals profiting off the destruction of our middle class.

The middle class has a message for you: go to hell.

[GenWhy?]

The Sun article isn't exactly clear and it too holds lots of overgeneralizations and so... missdirection. I'm not saying CACs and DCLs are at good levels, but then that involves a conversation on how do we fund reonvations, new, and additions to our community facilities and utilities? Fees, property taxes, more "Area Specific CAC Policy Areas"? More upzoning of areas to skip certain developments and areas from paying a rezoning CAC?

There is no one solution or tool.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

Just wanted to say this is totally true. Vancouver's politicians have artificially created a housing problem and has used this crisis as their rallying cry. I know on Broadway most lots are zoned C-3A which means they can build 3 stories in an area where no one cares if theres a tower or not (its all businesses not homes and theres no protected viewcones). Gregor Robertson promised (and lied) that when the Broadway Skytrain was built that the city wouldn't make the mistake of the East Van skytrain and keep density low....and instead he did worse than that and restricted all construction to social housing only (which no one is going to build). 3 story commercial buildings around major skytrain stations are of course exact what we need (Richmond, Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam, etc. are of course morons to do this [sarcasm]). I think they think if they restrict it to social housing that people will build it....but no one builds something that will be unprofitable except the government.



The government then imposed costs of around $800/sqft on new construction, made the zoning highly restrictive, takes years to approve things, killed the real estate market (so now theres no incentive to build as profits are non-existent), chased away foreign buyers (who would have rented out their units), and pushed everyone to build social housing or nothing (and of course no ones going to build something that doesn't make a profit so of course there not going to build shit).

I will end this speech by saying vote Ken Sim. He definitely does not agree with the policies I want but at least he has a chance of winning and he supports business. If we want a chance in hell of paying the taxes the NDP will put on us once their taxes chase all the rich away (yeah I know its shocking that the rich people will go somewhere else instead of letting us tax them to death to pay for social programs!) we need to draw more business here and increase what we already have.

if Ken Sim is truly in favour of a return to the unbridled sales to offshore owners, he's lost my vote. Be careful of what info you spread.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Good to know you’re not biased in any way.

Could have easily predicted your line of work based on your love for money launderers and desire to tear down all of the policies now in place and go back to the “good old days” of your ilk and the Liberals profiting off the destruction of our middle class.

The middle class has a message for you: go to hell.

It's definitely a two-way conversation. The fee system in place does do a bit of harm in increasing development costs and housing costs since most profitable larger builds (towers for sellable priced condo units) need to go through a rezoning process, even for small projects on arterial roads in small shopping districts like Hastings-Sunrise, Nanaimo St or Broadway.


Shutting, for instance, landlords and/or real estate folks only hurts the dialogue.

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

if Ken Sim is truly in favour of a return to the unbridled sales to offshore owners, he's lost my vote. Be careful of what info you spread.

I don't think he is (I wish he was), I like him over the others as everyone else wants to increase taxes. In the end our taxes are higher than the rest of Canada so I feel that we're going to make an error if we raise them any higher. Already around a third of the income of the lower class goes towards taxes when you factor in fuel, sales, income, etc. In the end our social support system is much stronger than most cities and I feel we're heading towards a vicious cycle should we raise it any more. Work needs to be rewarded for us to encourage people to work.

PS: I'm not in real estate sales....income wise I'm right in the middle at around $20/hour.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Perhaps do some research before you reply...since I'm in the Real Estate industry I know what I'm saying.

The fees and contributions do go down depending on where your building and what. But to get Comprehensive Development so you can build a tower expect to shell out big bucks. Amenity contributions range between $400-$600. You then need to shell out a portion towards social housing, taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc. There is no set process so your forced to hire someone familiar with the city and what they generally accept before submitting a plan to them. When I said $800/sqft that was being conservative.

Give me a break.

Yes there are CACs collected, and they go towards community improvements. I'm glad the developers are shouldering a bunch of these costs instead of leaving it to the regular homeowner/taxpayer. Since you are so educated, I assume you know how profit maximization works. This money would be going into developer pockets if the city wasn't extracting these fees.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

I don't think he is (I wish he was), I like him over the others as everyone else wants to increase taxes. In the end our taxes are higher than the rest of Canada so I feel that we're going to make an error if we raise them any higher. Already around a third of the income of the lower class goes towards taxes when you factor in fuel, sales, income, etc. In the end our social support system is much stronger than most cities and I feel we're heading towards a vicious cycle should we raise it any more. Work needs to be rewarded for us to encourage people to work.

PS: I'm not in real estate sales....income wise I'm right in the middle at around $20/hour.

Got any proof on that one?

In what sense are the taxes here "higher than the rest of Canada".

You make a bunch of generalized statements with nothing to back them up. Sounds like you've been fed a bunch of half-truths by the real estate sector and you're eating it up. Do some critical thinking and follow the money.

[GenWhy?]

The recent CAC/DCC/DCL increases were a bit... unpleasant, and the older CAC rate did make some smaller condo projects not so profitable (we did make them work as rental, however), but most projects we do the largest factors are Hard Costs and Land.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Give me a break.

Yes there are CACs collected, and they go towards community improvements. I'm glad the developers are shouldering a bunch of these costs instead of leaving it to the regular homeowner/taxpayer. Since you are so educated, I assume you know how profit maximization works. This money would be going into developer pockets if the city wasn't extracting these fees.

Developers never shoulder costs...thats propaganda. There is a margin of profit and if something cuts into that they won't do it. Its like if we increase sales tax does superstore make less or does the stuff we buy cost more. This is one reason why new condos cost a lot more than they used to. Also everyone needs to make a buck...developers make good money but so do gas stations, medical centers, etc. Developers help to solve our real estate problems by building higher density buildings. And the more profit there is for them the more they will build and the faster.

GenWhy? is right though the biggest costs are not the government. However, if new construction would cost say $400,000 and now costs $450,000 because the government raised CAC rates do you feel thats ok?

I'm a bit confused what you mean by rental...isn't rental unprofitable now compared to strata? I've been told that you need to do strata now as you can't make back the costs if you do rental. I can't imagine the smaller developers being able to carry the mortgage required for rentals.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

It's definitely a two-way conversation. The fee system in place does do a bit of harm in increasing development costs and housing costs since most profitable larger builds (towers for sellable priced condo units) need to go through a rezoning process, even for small projects on arterial roads in small shopping districts like Hastings-Sunrise, Nanaimo St or Broadway.


Shutting, for instance, landlords and/or real estate folks only hurts the dialogue.

I’m not disagreeing that some things should be streamlined. Not against dialogue or reasoned critique but this guy has shown himself to be a fool spouting hyperboles in multiple threads.

[djh]

Sigh.

Is it just me, or are others also feeling that they have no emotional connection to ANY of the political candidates for the upcoming election?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Developers never shoulder costs...thats propaganda. There is a margin of profit and if something cuts into that they won't do it. Its like if we increase sales tax does superstore make less or does the stuff we buy cost more. This is one reason why new condos cost a lot more than they used to. Also everyone needs to make a buck...developers make good money but so do gas stations, medical centers, etc. Developers help to solve our real estate problems by building higher density buildings. And the more profit there is for them the more they will build and the faster.

You fail economics. Real estate prices have been driven through the roof by speculation and demand.

If the price the market will bear is $1500/sf for prime land and buildings, then that's what developers will charge. If their costs are $1000/sf they will do it. If their costs are $500/sf they will do it laughing all the way to the bank.

Gas stations make money? Is that why so many are closing? No, it's because the land they sit on is so valuable, developers will buy it, clean it up, pay the CACs and still make a profit.

Medical centers make money? What does that even mean?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by misher

Developers never shoulder costs...thats propaganda. There is a margin of profit and if something cuts into that they won't do it. Its like if we increase sales tax does superstore make less or does the stuff we buy cost more. This is one reason why new condos cost a lot more than they used to. Also everyone needs to make a buck...developers make good money but so do gas stations, medical centers, etc. Developers help to solve our real estate problems by building higher density buildings. And the more profit there is for them the more they will build and the faster.

GenWhy? is right though the biggest costs are not the government. However, if new construction would cost say $400,000 and now costs $450,000 because the government raised CAC rates do you feel thats ok?

I'm a bit confused what you mean by rental...isn't rental unprofitable now compared to strata? I've been told that you need to do strata now as you can't make back the costs if you do rental. I can't imagine the smaller developers being able to carry the mortgage required for rentals.

Not at all. For rental you just need the right land costs, the right pre-existing zoned area to allow a decent rezoning process and increase in height and density to make the proforma work. As far as the election goes (to keep my posts on-thread) it's almost purely tied for us with land costs, parking minimums, and can we get enough height/density - outside the major corridors. But land costs need to come down.

What makes rental work instead of strata, for us and our smaller "family clients", is that we either do Rental 100 and get a DCL waiver, rental forgoes CACs, and we get better density, height, and parking relaxations with rental. We are finding it harder to make this work with the lots available now and the limited number of good lots, for a decent price, that demand little lot assembly. For instance we stay away from SF homes to assemble but there's a good little rental project on Renfrew for a Passive House that's making this happen. The recent actions by all levels of government have made our situation (rental, land costs) better than if nothing was done right now we'd be in... trouble? In sum we can still make it work but we're hitting the ceiling for land, construction, and rents we can charge.

The Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Programme is a good push in the right direction recently by Vision that is helping rental and we have 3 projects with it so I'll see.

[GenWhy?]

I've only been here a few years and I'm dead against party politics on a municipal level, so I personally don't feel a particular party has what it takes (tool-wise or PR-wise) and has the whole "package" (pro-active vs. re-active policies). I only mention the Vision pilot programme as a concrete example right now that (in a good way or bad) is trying to engage with development that deals with income-tied rents while not being social housing and dealing (in the meantime) with land and hard costs as they current stand.

[whatnext]

Mayoral candidate Kennedy Stewart promises to shut the revolving door between Vancouver City Hall and developers

When the city's general manager of real estate and facilities management, Bill Aujla, decided to join the Aquilini Group, it created a gaping hole at Vancouver City Hall.
Aujla held the post for four years, but his last day will come early next month, according to the Breaker.

He's not the only senior public servant in Vancouver to be snapped up by the Aquilinis. Former police chief Jim Chu also joined the company following his retirement.

But now, a candidate for mayor wants to impose waiting period on the top brass before they join developers or contractors that do business with the city.

Independent Kennedy Stewart said in a news release that he favours the introduction of new restrictions that parallel what already exist at the federal and provincial levels.

“In my first 100 days as mayor, I will bring in new rules to ensure developers and other city contractors are prohibited from hiring senior staff members for a cooling-off period of 12 months,” ..

https://www.straight.com/news/110699...vancouver-city

[bluefox]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Didn’t think I’d be voting Vision again, but I actually agree with all of this. What are the better options? Is this another developer-funded sleight of hand?

Well, technically Campbell is a developer...

I will vote for candidates who present the most coherent platform to address supply AND demand at all levels of housing need. In all honesty, there is no way to guarantee that a candidate won't be influenced by developers; they have way too much entrenched power at City Hall.

We aren't going to build our way out of the problem unless we actually match real demand from residents. Enough million-dollar one-bedroom condos already, we need tons of rental and practical family housing in this city.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Didn’t think I’d be voting Vision again, but I actually agree with all of this. What are the better options? Is this another developer-funded sleight of hand?



https://www.straight.com/news/110206...ed-permits-new

Ian Campbell should not be running for Mayor of Vancouver. It seems to me there is a real conflict of interest regarding his position in another layer of government (First Nations). It would be like letting the Mayor of Burnaby run to be Mayor of Vancouver as well. Add in the development issues surrounding the Squamish Band's holdings in the Jericho Lands and it just makes it worse. See: Top Vision Vancouver pick for mayor Ian Campbell tied to over $1 billion in developable properties.

Vote for Independent Kennedy Stewart instead.

[misher]

Originally Posted by djh

Sigh.

Is it just me, or are others also feeling that they have no emotional connection to ANY of the political candidates for the upcoming election?

Yeah I agree. Kind of the way recent Canadian elections work...you don't connect with the candidates. Its disappointing. I connected more with Obama.

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Not at all. For rental you just need the right land costs, the right pre-existing zoned area to allow a decent rezoning process and increase in height and density to make the proforma work. As far as the election goes (to keep my posts on-thread) it's almost purely tied for us with land costs, parking minimums, and can we get enough height/density - outside the major corridors. But land costs need to come down.

What makes rental work instead of strata, for us and our smaller "family clients", is that we either do Rental 100 and get a DCL waiver, rental forgoes CACs, and we get better density, height, and parking relaxations with rental. We are finding it harder to make this work with the lots available now and the limited number of good lots, for a decent price, that demand little lot assembly. For instance we stay away from SF homes to assemble but there's a good little rental project on Renfrew for a Passive House that's making this happen. The recent actions by all levels of government have made our situation (rental, land costs) better than if nothing was done right now we'd be in... trouble? In sum we can still make it work but we're hitting the ceiling for land, construction, and rents we can charge.

The Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Programme is a good push in the right direction recently by Vision that is helping rental and we have 3 projects with it so I'll see.

I was wondering how these developments were making the math work. Thanks for explaining. It seems like the increasing CAC's and more restrictive zoning is making it more difficult to make a profit from rental? Also is there any fear that there going to increase rental laws so its harder to charge a fair market rental rate and deal with stressful tenants? I can imagine them tying rental increases directly to inflation or freezing rental increases altogether.
Whenever I think of owning a rental I get nightmares about dealing with crappy tenants through our legal system.