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

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Nite is offering a masterclass in Casperization.

I don't think that's a helpful description.

[MonkeyRonin]

For as much blame as the feds deserve for their hand in the housing crisis, let's not forget that municipal governments are still pulling shit like this: https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...ment-fee-hikes

"Despite a push by Canada’s housing minister asking them to reconsider, Metro Vancouver’s board has gone ahead with big increases to fees on new construction.

...

But in a split vote following two hours of debate Friday, the board decided to increase development cost charges over the next three years by up to 250 per cent. This will add tens of thousands of dollars to a new home in some cases, but will reduce pressure to hike property taxes and utility fees."

[theman23]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

For as much blame as the feds deserve for their hand in the housing crisis, let's not forget that municipal governments are still pulling shit like this: https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...ment-fee-hikes

"Despite a push by Canada’s housing minister asking them to reconsider, Metro Vancouver’s board has gone ahead with big increases to fees on new construction.

...

But in a split vote following two hours of debate Friday, the board decided to increase development cost charges over the next three years by up to 250 per cent. This will add tens of thousands of dollars to a new home in some cases, but will reduce pressure to hike property taxes and utility fees."

Essentially a collective LOL from the metro Vancouver re: the housing accelerator fund. The money the accelerator delivers is peanuts compared to what they expect to make through development charges, and will likely remain that way as long as the Feds keep pushing on the accelerator on the demand side. Most likely the Liberals will give them money anyways because they need the photo op.

[elly63]

• Video Link

[casper]

Originally Posted by theman23

Essentially a collective LOL from the metro Vancouver re: the housing accelerator fund. The money the accelerator delivers is peanuts compared to what they expect to make through development charges, and will likely remain that way as long as the Feds keep pushing on the accelerator on the demand side. Most likely the Liberals will give them money anyways because they need the photo op.

Actually as it turns out, last month there was to be a photo opt and it was promptly cancelled by the minister due to this silly move by the municipalities.

https://globalnews.ca/video/9990705/...t-cost-changes

But most federal programs are allocated on a provincial per-capita basis.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by casper

Actually as it turns out, last month there was to be a photo opt and it was promptly cancelled by the minister due to this silly move by the municipalities.

https://globalnews.ca/video/9990705/...t-cost-changes

But most federal programs are allocated on a provincial per-capita basis.

I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as silly. The Minister, and the Housing Accelerator Fund, are transient. The defecit in infrastructure, and the need for additional sewer and water treatment and other Metro expenditure will still exist into the tenure of many more governments. In part, the need to upgrade the existing infrastructure is related to the billions of funds already committed by this federal government in loan guarantees to developers providing new rental housing. Housing starts are up in Greater Vancouver, and a year's delay in implementing the higher DCCs (which is what the minister requested) wouldn't help get the necessary infrastructure program built. Maybe if he had offered to contribute the money through federal funding, the Metro Board would have voted differently, but that wasn't the case.

[Hawrylyshyn]

Originally Posted by elly63

• Video Link

Love this! Here in Hamilton there was a Tiny Home projected to have 25, privately-funded tiny cabins built for the homeless. Despite being in the heart of a die-hard NDP ward, people came to a community meeting about it and demonstrated "physically and verbally aggressive behaviour", resulting in cancellation of the meeting before it could start and a delay (and perhaps cancellation) of the Tiny Homes project.

City staff pitch tiny homes pilot instead of sanctioned encampments
Backers of Hamilton’s ‘tiny homes’ plan disappointed that ‘anger’ cancelled meeting

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by elly63

• Video Link

great video - but man, the reporter there is almost unintelligible.

[dleung]

Tiny homes are retarded. Anywhere homeless people need to live to be near social services and community amenities, the land will be far more valuable than the little structures that sit on it. If it's not 6-storey wood-frame construction, it's not optimal-value housing

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as silly. The Minister, and the Housing Accelerator Fund, are transient. The defecit in infrastructure, and the need for additional sewer and water treatment and other Metro expenditure will still exist into the tenure of many more governments. In part, the need to upgrade the existing infrastructure is related to the billions of funds already committed by this federal government in loan guarantees to developers providing new rental housing. Housing starts are up in Greater Vancouver, and a year's delay in implementing the higher DCCs (which is what the minister requested) wouldn't help get the necessary infrastructure program built. Maybe if he had offered to contribute the money through federal funding, the Metro Board would have voted differently, but that wasn't the case.

There are other ways to fund infrastructure. As noted above, this increase to development fees was specifically to avoid raising property taxes - in what is already one of the lowest property tax regions in North America; thereby, once again, preferencing existing (mostly wealthier) homeowners by having future (mostly poorer) buyers & renters subsidize their artificially low property tax rates. 


In semi-related news, the BC government is also proposing to make all new housing even more expensive by requiring 100% of new units to be built to accessible standards: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bc-b...using-proposal

Originally Posted by dleung

Tiny homes are retarded. Anywhere homeless people need to live to be near social services and community amenities, the land will be far more valuable than the little structures that sit on it. If it's not 6-storey wood-frame construction, it's not optimal-value housing

Homeless people of 2023 are not the homeless people of yesteryear. Many are just working, lower income people who can no longer afford market rate rents anymore - they aren't necessarily all in need of social services. 

But also, the benefit of these sorts of tiny home communities is the low start-up cost, the speed at which they can be delivered, and the low overhead in running them. It allows smaller charities & non-profits to provide housing without having to raise capital and go through the whole development process - and to deliver it immediately. 

It's no substitute for larger, government-funded developments (eg. those optimized, 6-storey wood-framed apartments), but there's room for both - clearly, we aren't getting enough of either at the moment. 

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by dleung

Tiny homes are retarded. Anywhere homeless people need to live to be near social services and community amenities, the land will be far more valuable than the little structures that sit on it. If it's not 6-storey wood-frame construction, it's not optimal-value housing

I think it is destined to fail as homelessness has little to do with housing costs and more to do with addiction and mental health. However for the minority who just need a place to live, being in a tiny home might be preferable to sharing a multi-unit building with the majority who are afflicted with one or both. Doubtful but has a slightly higher chance.

[suburbanite]

Tiny home are not the solution, they are one part of a solution and help to provide a stopgap in the instances where excess beds are needed fast, and without the long lead times of a larger-scale project.

I guess we should tell someone who is homeless right now that they can't have a bed for 3 years because building anything other than "optimal value housing" for every single homeless person would be retarded.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

great video - but man, the reporter there is almost unintelligible.

• Video Link

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by elly63

• Video Link

Ahh. Damn. Thanks.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Tiny home are not the solution, they are one part of a solution and help to provide a stopgap in the instances where excess beds are needed fast, and without the long lead times of a larger-scale project.

I guess we should tell someone who is homeless right now that they can't have a bed for 3 years because building anything other than "optimal value housing" for every single homeless person would be retarded.

Tiny homes are a solution for some specificproblems, like barrack to civillian transition. Many soldiers fail to make to make that transition and tiny homes can help with that regard.

But as these are built, these might be even shittier solutions to Mobile Home Parks, which take up the same space, perhaps cheaper and offer more space internally.

[ssiguy]

I applaud the guy who is trying his best to build housing for people but this is not the solution especially in places where prices are so high. In Vancouver those tiny homes would still go for a $2 million due to the cost of the land.

As for Vancouver's new fee structure a call from Fraser isn't going to do any good as local politicians just exemplified. A threat from Ottawa doesn't mean a thing unless backed up by action. This is why I agree with PP on demanding housing actually get built and if not then the infrastructure money will not be forth coming regardless of the excuses or NIMBYs. In cities a large and politically powerful segment of the population doesn't want affordable housing, losing funding for housing means little to them ie Vancouver. No new roads, transit, libraries, community centres, bridges, parks etc definitely would especially if the city starts to have funding problems due to this and has to either hugely jack property taxes or cut the service.

Our city politicians have shown over the last 3 decades that playing nice doesn't work and sometimes the only thing that does is a gun at your head and PP acknowledges this and Trudeau doesn't. Without REAL consequences, a threat is nothing more than a mild suggestion.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

As for Vancouver's new fee structure a call from Fraser isn't going to do any good as local politicians just exemplified. A threat from Ottawa doesn't mean a thing unless backed up by action. This is why I agree with PP on demanding housing actually get built and if not then the infrastructure money will not be forth coming regardless of the excuses or NIMBYs. In cities a large and politically powerful segment of the population doesn't want affordable housing, losing funding for housing means little to them ie Vancouver. No new roads, transit, libraries, community centres, bridges, parks etc definitely would especially if the city starts to have funding problems due to this and has to either hugely jack property taxes or cut the service.

In order to fund new infrastructure Metro Vancouver is doing exactly what you've suggested. To fund infrastructure expansion, due to all the new housing being built, they are increasing fees in order to prevent a reduction in service.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

In order to fund new infrastructure Metro Vancouver is doing exactly what you've suggested. To fund infrastructure expansion, due to all the new housing being built, they are increasing fees in order to prevent a reduction in service.

^^^ This the problem. Vancouver is essentially taxing middle/lower income young people who are desperately just trying to get a roof over their heads but keeps the taxes low for those who have made their financial windfall from a real estate flipping economy. Such a system subsidizes the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Ahh. Damn. Thanks.

Entirely forgivable. Harry Forestell at one time was a big player on air at CBC Newsworld and later would get the host gig at CBC NB (which he has just pulled the pin on).

I hadn't seen him in years and when I heard this reporter I thought the same as you. And then I remembered Harry. Sad, but it looks like he coped exceptionally well for quite a long time.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I applaud the guy who is trying his best to build housing for people but this is not the solution especially in places where prices are so high. In Vancouver those tiny homes would still go for a $2 million due to the cost of the land.

The equivalent of greenfield tiny homes in an expensive land market would be these 3 story modular apartment buildings with studio apartments inside them.

I think it began in Vancouver, but Toronto has built many more examples of them on city-owned land - although not enough to keep up with demand.

---

I think that every city should identify benefactors like this guy who can help municipalities build a minimum number of modular, quick-to-install, independent living solutions like these.

There are the "hard homeless", and there are people with addictions/mental health issues, but the people served here seem to be ordinary low income people who just had bad luck and were living precariously before rents and inflation skyrocketed. The goal should be to put a roof over their heads before they turn to addictions or develop mental health issues and become walking human tragedies that cost society hundreds of thousands of dollars.