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

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Couldn't have said it better.

It is sad that somehow JT and The Gang believe that housing is now primarily for retirement planning and a place a plce to live in. Also that for some reason people today need at least and extra 400K for their "golden" years than only 10 years ago (2015 vs 2024 average price). Yeah, I know inflation will get presented as the reason why, but I don't think we've been averaging 7+% for 10 years.

The Globe & Mail Editorial Board rightly takes down Prime Minister Moonbeam and his fantasyland:

A Liberal position on housing that defies gravity
THE EDITORIAL BOARD
PUBLISHED 12 HOURS AGO
FOR SUBSCRIBERS

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears to believe he can amend a heretofore inviolate law of economics: that of supply and demand.

He said as much in a recent appearance on The Globe and Mail podcast City Space in which he talked about housing affordability. He was asked whether current homeowners will have to accept some sacrifices so aspiring homeowners – who are presently priced out – can enter the market.

“I think anyone who hopes for the housing prices to remain on the kind of trajectory they’ve been on over the past decade or two should maybe think about what kind of society and world they want to live in, where only people who either inherited wealth or had very, very good timing” are able to buy a house, Mr. Trudeau said.

Sensible enough so far. A lack of supply (which this space has written about before) and high demand have led to skyrocketing prices....

....So prices should come down, right? Well … not so fast.

“But housing needs to retain its value,” Mr. Trudeau continued. “It’s a huge part of people’s potential for retirement and future nest egg. I mean, the difference between someone who’s rented all their lives versus someone who is a homeowner in terms of the money they have for retirement is massive, and that’s not necessarily always fair.”

Much of this is also true. Many Canadians are relying on the equity in their homes to fund their retirement, because of poor savings (some of which is due to the high cost of living) and the declining prevalence of private-sector pensions.

But here’s the rub: the Prime Minister can’t have it both ways. Housing is inaccessible right now because it is too expensive. The only way to increase access until supply can catch up to demand is for prices to drop.

In the utopia he describes, there would be more homeowners (more supply), thus fewer aspiring homeowners (lower demand) – but continued high prices.

This would defy the law of supply and demand. He might as well ask the apple coming loose from the tree to fly straight up...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...efies-gravity/

[bolognium]

Originally Posted by theman23

He actually recently did a follow up piece. Bought a 32 acre property in Hagersville with half the cash from his Toronto house and seems to be pretty happy with the decision.
https://torontolife.com/real-estate/...or-rural-life/

Originally Posted by jonny24

Great, now I'm jealous of Toronto Life Guy.

I'm downright chuffed things worked out so well for Toronto Life Guy™

[urbandreamer]

I think JT & PP are both truly ignorant to most of Canada's housing needs simply because they spend so much time in Quebec and Ottawa, and of course Vancouver/Island for JT & Southern Alberta PP.

Most towns and suburbs in Quebec are building 3-5 storey blocks of flats & smaller bungalow homes without garages. I mean way out in the boonies, 1.5 hours North of Montreal, hundreds perhaps thousands of new flats being built. It's unfortunate, but the political elite must think all lower middle class people should rent.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by bolognium

I'm downright chuffed things worked out so well for Toronto Life Guy™

Proof one can be an absolute moron and pile up $900k of debt on a $300k purchase and still end up with a seven figure tax-free profit at sale. They say failing upwards is limited to Hollywood. Pfft.

Every Gen Alpha should go back in time to 1998 and buy a Trinity Bellwoods home. Duh, it’s so obvious.

Anyway, note to people near retirement: vote Team Red and they’ll make sure your nest egg is protected. You too could live the Toronto Life Guy(tm) lifestyle!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Anyway, note to people near retirement: vote Team Red and they’ll make sure your nest egg is protected. You too could live the Toronto Life Guy(tm) lifestyle!

Even Team Blue is likely going to mostly protect real estate values. The Libs' pet Scheme of Great Enrichment is going to be hard to reverse at this point in time, I think continuing with the mix of pros and cons of the Scheme (albeit less at full steam than under JT, because PP has to show he's "doing something") is the least bad plan for the future.

I expect PP to reach that conclusion after becoming PM, if he hasn't already.

[urbandreamer]

Nothing will change. Maybe the select 100k elite lobbyists, lawyers and co will have more work, while JT's crowd will make even more money in private sector nonsense opposition careers.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Proof one can be an absolute moron and pile up $900k of debt on a $300k purchase and still end up with a seven figure tax-free profit at sale. They say failing upwards is limited to Hollywood. Pfft.

Decupling one's money over 20 years (like the TLG did) isn't exactly unheard of, or crazy abnormal.

(10)^(1/20)= 1.12, so 12% growth per year.

For the record, I've beaten that continuously since 2005. Others have done even better (like my eletrical engineer buddy who mined a lot of bitcoin in the early 2010s)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Nothing will change.

I'm actually betting a substantial amount on this (otherwise it would be time to sell off all I have in urban Canada right now, before PP becomes PM!)

[Nite]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Still sort of crazy that the 6th largest CMA is the 5th most affordable.

Edmonton also proves that cheap housing and rents don't cause or prevent homelessness

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Nite

Edmonton also proves that cheap housing and rents don't cause or prevent homelessness

They do put downward pressure on over-crowding.

[lio45]

It’s not debatable that there’s a correlation, and certainly a strong one, between housing affordability and homelessness.

When housing is plentiful and cheap, only the most “socially misadapted” will be homeless. Everyone else will have a roof over their head.

The one and only possible reason there can be for anyone who isn’t completely fucked up to not have somewhere indoors to call home is that housing is too rare and pricy.

[Truenorth00]

We used to have cheap motels a decade ago where a lot of marginal people could stay for a night to months. Now they live on the street because those places are expensive.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by lio45

It’s not debatable that there’s a correlation, and certainly a strong one, between housing affordability and homelessness.

When housing is plentiful and cheap, only the most “socially misadapted” will be homeless. Everyone else will have a roof over their head.

The one and only possible reason there can be for anyone who isn’t completely fucked up to not have somewhere indoors to call home is that housing is too rare and pricy.

The data is from 2013



https://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/...capita-and-why

I don't see any correlation with percent of the population homeless with housing prices.
Canada's most expensive housing market Vancouver and one of most affordable Edmonton, had the same homeless rate in 2013
My conclusion is that housing affordability has little to nothing to do with homelessness.

[LuluBobo]

Originally Posted by Nite

The data is from 2013



https://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/...capita-and-why

I don't see any correlation with percent of the population homeless with housing prices.

Regina is one of the most affordable cities in the country and our PiT counts are approaching 1000.

When 90% of the homeless people are battling severe mental health challenges and addictions, the actual price of the home isn't really that important. A lot of homeless couldn't retain housing at $100/month because they don't have the supports to be stable.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by LuluBobo

Regina is one of the most affordable cities in the country and our PiT counts are approaching 1000.

When 90% of the homeless people are battling severe mental health challenges and addictions, the actual price of the home isn't really that important. A lot of homeless couldn't retain housing at $100/month because they don't have the supports to be stable.

I completely agree

[Innsertnamehere]

it's a mix.

There are a lot of "mildly homeless" who are so because of housing costs. These people tend to be in shelters, in their cars, sleeping on friends couches, etc. and are not nearly as visible.

The homeless sleeping in tents, the more visible ones, are usually dealing with mental and physical health ailments and drug addictions which make finding stable housing challenging. They need "supportive" housing at very low cost with staff to provide stability and guidance to recovery.

The second group is the toughest one to address and is unfortunately massively growing in size due to the fentanyl epidemic. Another large aspect of it is falling rates of incarceration in Canada. The number of inmates in Canada has fallen by about 25% per capita in the last decade - A lot of these homeless historically would have been "housed" behind bars for their crimes of drug addiction and other associated behaviors which are common like assault and theft. We have simply stopped convicting and jailing these people at the same rate we used to. We can debate whether that is good or bad.

[niwell]

A significant percentage of those living in tents also used to live in cheap rooming houses. Even with addictions a $300 (sometimes even less) room made the issue much less visible, and it's much easier for one to tackle said addictions with a roof over their head. Even disregarding SROs are very difficult if not impossible to legally establish in many areas, the value proposition just isn't there anymore. Why rent out a house with 10 cheap rooms when something marginally nicer can net many times the rent. Or as lio likes to point out can be filled with students seemingly willing to pay.

[whatnext]

But we neeed more supply!

John Pasalis
@JohnPasalis
The Toronto area had 7,860 condo apartments for sale at the end of May

That is the highest number of units for sale ever

In any month, any year, including during COVID

https://x.com/JohnPasalis/status/1797731653567299750

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

But we neeed more supply!

John Pasalis
@JohnPasalis
The Toronto area had 7,860 condo apartments for sale at the end of May

That is the highest number of units for sale ever

In any month, any year, including during COVID

https://x.com/JohnPasalis/status/1797731653567299750

Your ability to deny the market forces of Supply and Demand is truly something to behold.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

it's a mix.

There are a lot of "mildly homeless" who are so because of housing costs. These people tend to be in shelters, in their cars, sleeping on friends couches, etc. and are not nearly as visible.

The homeless sleeping in tents, the more visible ones, are usually dealing with mental and physical health ailments and drug addictions which make finding stable housing challenging. They need "supportive" housing at very low cost with staff to provide stability and guidance to recovery.

The second group is the toughest one to address and is unfortunately massively growing in size due to the fentanyl epidemic. Another large aspect of it is falling rates of incarceration in Canada. The number of inmates in Canada has fallen by about 25% per capita in the last decade - A lot of these homeless historically would have been "housed" behind bars for their crimes of drug addiction and other associated behaviors which are common like assault and theft. We have simply stopped convicting and jailing these people at the same rate we used to. We can debate whether that is good or bad.

Yeah the non visibile might have some correlation to costs and of course the ration with entry level wages. Except minimum wage is probably the only wage that has kept pace with rental costs.

Meanwhile the homeless that are actually bothering the rest of us have nothing to do with costs. They are extreme addicts and can't even stay housed in the rooming house with their disabilty check. They are likely to be kicked out of even free housing.