Housing Bubble II: The Quest To Build Enough Homes Where People Actually Need Them

[905er]

Originally Posted by casper

This has been changed already.

The feds have changed the rules. An international student applying for a visa must present a letter from the province accepting their application and certifying it is a valid program.

The feds are also implementing caps on how many letter each province can write each year.

you actually trust the feds to follow through with this? I'm watching communities literally be diluted completely of all multiculturalism b/c it's turned almost completely Indian.... we're accepting far too many people each year, and almost all coming from one source country... and we simply don't have the housing. The feds also lie... our communities are under tremendous stress right now and the government still tries to justify accepting the numbers of people we are letting in year after year.. the math doesn't add up.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by casper

This has been changed already.

Do you agree that even AFTER the changes, the Feds are still continuing to make the housing crisis worse from the current levels?

"Okay, we saw the light, we'll take less FNSs than before" doesn't mean the housing crisis is going to stop increasing in magnitude.

For the housing crisis to stop increasing in magnitude, it would have to be "Okay, we'll take less FNSs per year than the yearly average capacity of industry to build new housing", which isn't the same thing at all.

[ssiguy]

There would indeed be economic consequences and over the short-term we would see GDP fall but per-capita it's been falling for years so it won't be as bad as many make it out to be.

That said, a falling per-capita GDP in this case does not necessarily mean a lower standard of living. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians would be able to move into affordable housing and all of our homeless would be able to get housing. Canadians would also enjoy much higher levels of discretionary spending due to not having to spend half their income on their rent/mortgages. Also, without businesses being able to just import cheap labour, they would actually have to raise wages to get workers and/or invest in technology and upgrade skills so the economy grows in a way that increases our productivity and hence wages over the long-term as opposed to getting poorer every single year.

We need a population decline for at least a couple years. NO one should be allowed into the country, except the very few who are highly skilled in much needed occupations, until EVERYONE in Canada has a decent and affordable roof over their heads.

If a country as potentially wealthy as Canada can't even house it's own people then we have failed as a nation and if it is said by our politicians and/or landed gentry that it is not possible then they are lying thru their teeth.

If we were to refuse any new TFW/students/refugee claims/family reunification and only let in one-quarter the number of immigrants we take in now while simultaneously giving all our over 1 million "temporary" residents the boot, we could solve this problem tomorrow.

[P'tit Renard]

Looks like Texas has the right mix of housing policies. Texans get to reap the benefits in the form of a dynamic high-salaried economy and reap the rewards of affordable housing:

- It is easy to build housing, it’s not taxed to an extreme level

- Small permitting bureaucracy has made it a renewable energy leader

- Property taxes are high, income taxes low, which is best!

https://twitter.com/EricDLombardi/st...59373718573087


:

[lio45]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

- Property taxes are high, income taxes low, which is best!

Exactly. Meanwhile in Canada, it's the opposite: people have incentives to have the lowest possible incomes, so they can get benefits, while having the highest-value possible real estate.

Multimillionaires getting the GST credit and all the other "low income" benefits are very common.

You discourage what you tax. Canada discourages productive behavior (working), while encouraging real estate investment. Texas does the opposite.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by lio45

exactly. Meanwhile in canada, it's the opposite: People have incentives to have the lowest possible incomes, so they can get benefits, while having the highest-value possible real estate.

Multimillionaires getting the gst credit and all the other "low income" benefits are very common.

You discourage what you tax. Canada discourages productive behavior (working), while encouraging real estate investment. Texas does the opposite.

100%. This is an important point that gets brought up here on occasion (including by myself), but as of yet hasn't seemed to work its way into the mainstream consciousness. Our model of high income taxes/low property taxes inherently promotes unproductive economic behaviour, and exacerbates inequality by having workers subsidize homeowners (the former group being poorer, on average, than the latter, despite the overlap). It also drives up housing prices by making it a more attractive investment vehicle than it otherwise would be if homeowners had to pay for the true cost of servicing their property. We're all poorer as a result; yet the prospect of raising property taxes is still taboo and met with revulsion across the political spectrum.

In Canada, one of the best possible situations to be in would be own a property but not have a job; then sell said property every 366 days or so, collect however much the price gain in the last year was tax-free, while also collecting low-income/unemployment benefits on account of not working. Depending on your age & location, you may even be able to avoid paying the standard property taxes. Completely unethical, but entirely legal under the current system.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

100%. This is an important point that gets brought up here on occasion (including by myself), but as of yet hasn't seemed to work its way into the mainstream consciousness. Our model of high income taxes/low property taxes inherently promotes unproductive economic behaviour, and exacerbates inequality by having workers subsidize homeowners (the former group being poorer, on average, than the latter, despite the overlap). It also drives up housing prices by making it a more attractive investment vehicle than it otherwise would be if homeowners had to pay for the true cost of servicing their property. We're all poorer as a result; yet the prospect of raising property taxes is still taboo and met with revulsion across the political spectrum.

In Canada, one of the best possible situations to be in would be own a property but not have a job; then sell said property every 366 days or so, collect however much the price gain in the last year was tax-free, while also collecting low-income/unemployment benefits on account of not working. Depending on your age & location, you may even be able to avoid paying the standard property taxes. Completely unethical, but entirely legal under the current system.

My personal income is very low but sufficient for my reasonable lifestyle when in Canada, and over the years, government audits have confirmed to me that it's indeed fully legal (and no one from the govt dared call it unethical at least not to my face)

[lio45]

And whatnext's comment was squarely on the same topic: as long as we keep demand much higher than the industry's ability to build, we'll continue to make the housing crisis worse, period.

If only one politician correctly identifies that the "problem" comes from Canada not being able to escape the fundamental laws of supply and demand, then that's that.

A more nuanced approach would be to admit that the Scheme has pros and cons -- it's not as simple as saying Mad Max is right in wanting to stop the Scheme while JT/PP are wrong in wanting to continue it.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lio45

And whatnext's comment was squarely on the same topic: as long as we keep demand much higher than the industry's ability to build, we'll continue to make the housing crisis worse, period.

If only one politician correctly identifies that the "problem" comes from Canada not being able to escape the fundamental laws of supply and demand, then that's that.

A more nuanced approach would be to admit that the Scheme has pros and cons -- it's not as simple as saying Mad Max is right in wanting to stop the Scheme while JT/PP are wrong in wanting to continue it.

You never bothered to comment on Mad Max in your reply, you merely shifted the goal posts.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I would never vote for Mad Max and his unmerry band of xenophobes.

Originally Posted by Lio45

One has to pick between skyrocketing homelessness + reliable year-after-year real estate gains for the Landed Gentry, and being a massive-arrival-of-Fresh-New-Suckers-phobe. It's pretty much a binary situation -- can't escape nor deny the basic laws of Supply and Demand.

What are you proposing? That either you vote for...Trudeau and his inflationary policies, or you vote for Mad Max? There are many other options out there. But carry on with moving the goalposts.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

You never bothered to comment on Mad Max in your reply, you merely shifted the goal posts.





What are you proposing? That either you vote for...Trudeau and his inflationary policies, or you vote for Mad Max? There are many other options out there. But carry on with moving the goalposts.

I'm pointing out that any single-issue voter whose single issue is housing, should probably vote for the only politician who wants to stop the Scheme of Endless Boosting of the Housing Crisis.

(I'm not a single-issue voter, and I'm probably not voting for Mad Max.)

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

What are you proposing? That either you vote for...Trudeau and his inflationary policies, or you vote for Mad Max? There are many other options out there. But carry on with moving the goalposts.

The problem is that there are no other options out there. Singh couldn't run a newsstand, the Greens are in more disarray than ever, and PPC is nutcase territory.

In regards to who we want to lead the country we only have 2 choices, both of which are bad but for different reasons..............Trudeau thinks money is just a useless piece of paper that you just have to print more of to solve your problems and PP, while at least having a decent grasp of basic economic, is a conspiracy nut.

It's not that people like PP because I don't think the vast majority of Canadians do and even a lot of Tory supporters particularly their new centrist support that have left the Liberals and the young people who have done it en masse. It's not of matter of whether PP will be a good PM but rather the overwhelming belief amongst Canadians that he couldn't possibly do any worse than the juvenile delinquent we have now.

Can you name ANYTHING in Canada where we are better off now than when we were when he took power?...............very few Canadians, including myself, can think of even one.

[MolsonExport]

Mad Max makes Trudeau look like Albert Einstein.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Mad Max makes Trudeau look like Albert Einstein.

Which isn't unrelated to the fact that I'd consider voting for Einstein if he were alive and on the ballot, while I've never voted for JT or Max.

[905er]

Canada is a total joke of a country right now. Post pandemic this country has really gone to shit... I really hate to say this because I've always considered myself patriotic and proud to be Canadian, but the sharp decline... since Trudeau has become Prime Minister...and I can only imagine how much worse it'll be when Polievre becomes P.M... It's an absolute disaster here and we need to clean house!

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by 905er

Canada is a total joke of a country right now. Post pandemic this country has really gone to shit... I really hate to say this because I've always considered myself patriotic and proud to be Canadian, but the sharp decline... since Trudeau has become Prime Minister...and I can only imagine how much worse it'll be when Polievre becomes P.M... It's an absolute disaster here and we need to clean house!

You are correct, We have seen several press conferences across the country where Trudeau has talked about the housing crisis. He talks about getting homes built while standing infront of apartment buildings and high rises. Basically saying that with the current affordability crisis, middle class Canadians will from now on be condemned to live in apartments.Citizens of the second largest country on earth, and the most empty are condemned to live in apartments and condos from now on. PP wil not improve things at all. Things will remain the same on the housing front. If you're rich or inherit your home you are ok, everyone else fuck off. That is the new Canada. We see health care eroding now also. Canada now ranks as one of the worst among western countries when it comes to health care.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Luisito

You are correct, We have seen several press conferences across the country where Trudeau has talked about the housing crisis. He talks about getting homes built while standing infront of apartment buildings and high rises. Basically saying that with the current affordability crisis, middle class Canadians will from now on be condemned to live in apartments.Citizens of the second largest country on earth, and the most empty are condemned to live in apartments and condos from now on. PP wil not improve things at all. Things will remain the same on the housing front. If you're rich or inherit your home you are ok, everyone else fuck off. That is the new Canada. We see health care eroding now also. Canada now ranks as one of the worst among western countries when it comes to health care.

How much of this is infrastructure and anti-car green policies?

Houston has like 10 Freeways that branch out into its suburbs accessing a lot more areas allowing almost everyone with a job to easily afford a SFH.

[Xelebes]

Just a comparison:

Anthony Henday Drive: $4.3 billion over 26 years for less than 78 km ($55 million/km) @ 22,000 people/day
Edmonton Valley LRT (downtown to Millwoods): $1.8 billion over 7 years for 13 kilometres ($138 million/km) @ 30,000 people/day

[MolsonExport]

I left Vancouver in 1998 on account of the exorbitant housing prices. After four years of managing a business with 150 employees, I still could not scrape together enough money for a down payment on a modest condominium. Goddamned Trudeau, it was all his fault.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Not sure where you get "about 10% of transactions in more recent years have been made by foreign investors", but foreign investors haven't been allowed to buy property in Canada since 2023, and that's been extended until 2027. An FOI request by Global News revealed that the ban was only expected to impact 2% of propery sales, as foreign investment had already fallen due to vacant homes taxes. And "The latest available home ownership data via Statistics Canada shows 2.6 per cent of Toronto’s housing stock and 4.3 per cent of Vancouver’s were owned by non-residents as of 2021." So they really shouldn't have the impact on the market that you suggest.

I've seen all sorts of figures for the rate of foreign buyers in a given year, from as low as 5% to as much as 20 to 30%. Consistent, accurate data is hard to come by, but the 10% figure was cited from here: https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/for...0still%20local.

That would also make sense if 4-5% of all properties are foreign-owned, as obviously not all properties are on the market at any given time. And foreign investment in Vancouver RE really only started in earnest in the 90s, and then picked up in the 00s and 10s, before tapering off somewhat more recently - though, not entirely; as the supposed "ban" on foreign buyers still has enough loopholes as to make it possible to bypass.

In any case, I wouldn't argue that foreign investors are the main cause of Vancouver’s distorted housing price to income ratio, but it's hard to deny that they've played a role. The state of our housing market is ultimately a "death by a thousand cuts" type situation, after all.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I left Vancouver in 1998 on account of the exorbitant housing prices. After four years of managing a business with 150 employees, I still could not scrape together enough money for a down payment on a modest condominium. Goddamned Trudeau, it was all his fault.

Not sure what your point is beyond being a strawman, but the average home price in Metro Vancouver in 1998 was around $220,000 ($382,000 in today's dollars).

More expensive than the rest of the country at the time to be sure, but a far cry from today's average price of $1,211,700. Needless to say incomes haven't also tripled in that time. Today's pricing is also quite a far cry from the 2015 average of $761,000.

Trudeau Jr.'s policies didn't make Vancouver expensive, but they sure accelerated it.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I've seen all sorts of figures for the rate of foreign buyers in a given year, from as low as 5% to as much as 20 to 30%.

It mostly comes down to the definition of who is a foreign buyer. Meng with her $22M Vancouver real estate portfolio had PR and wouldn't have counted as foreign during that time. I wonder if a person who has been here for a few months doing a fake degree and has boatloads of cash to invest counts.

The reality is Canada would have barely any growth without foreign-born people moving here and their economic contributions along with capital generated abroad and invested here. You can debate if it's good or bad but that's how it is and conversations around foreign buyers that don't acknowledge these facts are not honest IMO. I think we should have a balanced level of immigration similar to what we had in the 2010's and foreign investment is good but it shouldn't come at the expense of standards of living for any cohort here in Canada. If we had gone the route of special economic zones for Chinese condos maybe it would have panned out better, but that wouldn't have delivered the same windfall to homeowners so it wasn't a desirable policy.