July 8 Market Update
Weekly numbers courtesy of the VREB.
| July 2019 |
July
2018
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk 1 | Wk 2 | Wk 3 | Wk 4 | ||
| Sales | 136 | 651 | |||
| New Listings | 284 | 1048 | |||
| Active Listings | 2995 | 2607 | |||
| Sales to New Listings | 48% | 62% | |||
| Sales Projection | — | ||||
| Months of Inventory | 4.0 | ||||
Pretty slow start to the month, about 7% fewer sales than this week last year. 136 sales but 157 price changes (read: reductions) as the spring leftovers chase increasingly disinterested buyers that are thinking more about summer vacation than house hunting. As usual, don’t pay too much attention to the first week that can sometimes give a false impression of where the month will go. Regardless, it seems relatively clear that our little sales jump in May was more of a blip, with June back to last year’s performance and July looking about the same.
Sales prices relative to assessment also continued similarly to previous months, with the median resale condo going for 5% over, and the median single family home in Greater Victoria selling for 2% over. That has been stable all year.
This measure is somewhat condition dependent, so expect it to drop somewhat as we move into the latter half of the year. I would expect that at least single family properties will drift downwards to sell on average at or just under assessed value by late fall.
In other news, bond yields surged a bit recently, so if you are considering locking in some of the unexpectedly good fixed rates we’ve been seeing or refinancing to one, now may be the ideal time before they rise again.
Breakdown of sales by price range on request of a reader: https://househuntvictoria.ca/2019/07/11/market-breakdown-wheres-the-activity/
@guest_61650
I have to admit I am wrong again. I did not realize the spec tax really has it out for foreign owners.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/property-taxes/speculation-and-vacancy-tax/exemptions-speculation-and-vacancy-tax/individuals/tenancy-requirements
They give an Example:
“The owner of a condo in New Westminster is not a Canadian citizen. Her adult son lives in the condo and is a Canadian citizen who is a resident in B.C. for income tax purposes. He studies at a local university and has a modest income from a part-time job.
Result:
The owner must pay the speculation and vacancy tax. This is a non-arm’s-length tenant of a foreign owner who does not have the minimum required income.”
This example seems to prove your point that it is not about increasing house supply….
Nonsense.
If the owner is a satellite family (majority of world income not reported on Canada return), his kid (or other family member ) living in the house 12 months a year doesn’t help. Because that’s a “non-arms length rental”, and there’s no exemption for that rental for satellite families. So a dad in Seattle (who pays less than 50% of worldwide income on Canadian tax returns) who buys a Victoria condo for his kid and the kid lives in that 12 months a year, dad needs to pay 2% spec tax, but if he rents it to a stranger no spec tax. Idiotic.
https://www.rebgv.org/news-archive/what-you-need-to-know-about-bc-s-speculation-and-vacancy-tax.html
“Non-arm’s-length rental exemption – owners who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada, but not satellite families, will also be eligible for the rental exemption for a non-arm’s length tenant as long as the residence is the tenant’s principal residence.”
@guest_61650
They have already renamed it to Speculation and Vacancy Tax to make it clear it is not just about speculators. As far as I understand it only applies when the property is vacant. So for the case of a foreigner buying for their kid, if the kid is living in it, they should be able to prove it is not vacant and tax should not apply. The tax rate is just higher for foreigners and satellite families. Satellite families are non-foreigners that don’t pay Canadian income tax
I think the govt have spent too much time on these peripheral minor “bogeyman” issues like “vacant homes”, “satellite families”, “money launderers” and “unexplained wealth” buying homes…. and not enough on the basics of solving the housing crisis…
Now that we see small numbers of vacant homes, maybe the govt can move on, and get down to work and come out with some big announcements on some more province-wide shovel-ready affordable housing projects.
I think the purpose of introducing of spec tax, like the foreign buyer tax and empty house tax, is a try to cool down the housing market and they all did some help.
For example, when you see flood coming to your house, you would grab anything, sand bags, buckets and water pumps that can help, rather than just sitting there and waiting to figure out what is the major factor and criticizing others who do get pumps and sand bags, wouldn’t you? Or you already figure out the major factor and have a way to handle it so we don’t need sand bags anymore?
If you do, please do share your method 😉
A typical satellite family paying spec tax is a foreigner who buys a condo for his kid to live in Vancouver. If you read my post from today,(61702) you will clearly see that I say that satellite families are foreign owners. And outlined in that post you’ll see that this harmless group of satellite families are paying $45m in spec tax, more than 6X what all BCers are paying. It is simply a matter of the govt wanting to target very rich (non-voting) foreigners, instead of BC (voting) speculators.
Awesome. Shoot me an email Leo.spalteholz@gmail.com and I can describe what I need in case he is interested.
@Leo S
My husband! He’s old school but reliable, red seal and BC Master Electrician.
Why are electricians so flakey? First one ghosted me after the initial consult the second one didn’t show up at all.
Any recommendations?
All kinds of people. You don’t need to look far…
For example, how about looking at the very post before yours, from “Former Landlord” who says “If all those 1% of [vacant] homes were listed that would increase the active listings from 3000 to about 4500. A 50% increase in active listing seems like it could have a significant impact on the market.”
Anyway, if your point is that 1% of vacant homes isn’t a major factor on the market, we agree. Which leads us to the question… what’s the point of introducing/continuing the spec tax to help fix the housing crisis if vacant homes aren’t a major factor in causing it?
I see what you are saying about speculators. So the definition of a speculator is that they are trying to ride an upward trend. Similar to the way “growth strategy” is in the stock market. Here stock pickers try to catch stocks that have an upward trend and everybody piles in to ride the wave. Everybody tries to time getting out before the crash. When the actual crash happens everybody is trying to sell at the same time worsening the crash.
Yep, sounds like gambling to me too.
Everybody except:
– people who want to buy simply because they want a stable place to live but face inflated prices.
– renters who get bounced around because speculators own so much of the rental stock.
– people in the construction industry who face boom or bust employment.
– governments which see wildly swinging tax revenues and may have to bail out lenders.
I could say more, but I’ll just give a number: 2008.
If you are right that speculators are miss timing the market, then they would be losing money while others made money off of that. Seems like a good thing for everybody except speculators (and a bad thing for all those that believed the speculators saying prices could only go up and bought in when prices were too high).
I think you may be overestimating the ability of speculators to time the market 🙂
Based on the data I’ve seen on intended use it’s more like speculators pile on when prices are roaring up and try to get out when the market is dead. For some that works.
But that’s not what actually happens. If it did, there would be very little cyclical movement in RE prices. Actually what you’re describing is value investing where investors buy at attractive price/rent ratios and sell when they are unattractive.
Speculators are mostly motivated by expectation of future prices. That is, they buy when they expect future prices to be higher and sell when they expect future prices to be lower. The market tops out when there aren’t enough speculators who can afford to buy. And it bottoms out when most speculators have left and value investors and bargain-seeking owner-occupiers start buying,.
Major factor? Who said that? It is the 1st time I saw the words “major-factor” used wrt the subject and I saw them only in your post 😉
If all those 1% of homes were listed that would increase the active listings from 3000 to about 4500. A 50% increase in active listing seems like it could have a significant impact on the market.
My estimate of the percent of homes in Victoria that are “vacant” (ie vacation properties/airbnbs/satellite families/misc. residents occupying less than 6 months) according to the govt released numbers on the spec tax is 1%. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/early-speculation-tax-figures-show-foreign-owners-hardest-hit
To me, 1% is a tiny number and would take vacant homes out of the “bogeyman thats causing the housing crisis” and put it into a list of tiny factors.
Here’s how I got to the 1% number.
Anyway, if we assume that 1% is about correct,
– is there anyone willing to say that they were expecting a small number like 1% of homes being vacant?
– And we can at least drop the idea that freeing up vacant homes would be a major factor in fixing the housing crisis?
I see why both bears and bulls hate speculators. For a bull speculators sell their properties when prices are high causing a dampening effect on the market. For a bear speculators buy when prices are low, potentially snapping away a property the bear was hoping would go even lower.
That’s not the definition of satellite under the spec tax law and given all the attention you’ve paid to the topic I’d say you know it.
If people want to buy a place for their kids they can just put it in the kid’s name and it becomes the kid’s PR. They can put a big mortgage on it, payable to them, to keep the kid from selling it and running off with the money.
If they don’t want to do this but rather keep it in their own name IMHO the goal is to sell it for more later and you know what the name for that is.
You have wrong idea of satellite family. I have friends who have house/condo in Vancouver and Victoria for their kids to live in, but they don’t need to pay spec tax. The definition of satellite family is a household in which 50 per cent or more of the income comes from OUTSIDE Canada. e.g. people who report near zero Canadian income and live in $multi-million houses/condos
I think the spec tax makes exemption for landlords Not because they are not speculators, but because their (not-short-term) rentals are good in reducing rental market pressure, so should be encouraged. That is why this group of speculators don’t need to pay spec tax.
If we have enough purpose-built rental units and there is little market for private/individual landlords, then this group would be very very small to make much impact.
I would say speculation is actually a form of gambling…
I call most of those people investors, not speculators. And I don’t think investors are bad for the market when they provide much needed rental housing. All speculators are investors, but not all investors are speculators.
What makes a speculator? I would say either:
a) Buying with no intention to rent or occupy. Whether that is leaving it mostly empty or flipping pre-sales.
b) Investors that rent out units but where the investment doesn’t make sense from a return perspective (price too high for the rent). The only way that investment works is with capital gains from rising prices, which is speculation. These rentals also tend to be more tenuous because the rent doesn’t support the property so renters are at the mercy of the speculator’s timelines and ability to hold.
SVT targets the first kind, pre-sale condo registry targets the first kind as well, and it’s almost impossible to get the second kind so likely just a symptom of bull markets that we have to live with.
I know there’s a lot of hate for flippers out there, but I have no issue with them either as long as they are actually renovating the place. The CRA is starting to pay close attention to that and will tax appropriately.
That a huge loss in 24 months, it works out to about $300,000 when everything is factored in, in other words it’s about $12,500 loss per month for 24 months.
Re-sales with big losses are a weekly occurrence these days, in all neighbourhoods, and not just in the high end properties.
By your definition, spec tax cant be charged until there is a sale, but that is sale tax and already covered by CRA (see the CRA raids reported recently) that the short term house flipping gain should be reported as income, not capital gain.
So basically you want no spec tax.
Not if it targeted speculators properly. By having a speculator tax only apply when a property was sold within a short time of buying it. This seems to be the objection to speculators, not that they are long term holders, but are buying and selling short term (flipping) to make a profit.
If it targeted those people then it would be a landlord tax
My complaint was (and is) that the tax doesn’t target speculators, it targets people with second homes (vacation), or homes for their kids to live in (satellite). Speculators typically buy housing and rent it out and then sell for a profit. They’re not targeted.
Because so much of the spec tax income (90%) is from foreigners, if the govt loses the NAFTA and other challenges (as I expect they will), the govt will end up refunding about 70% of the entire spec tax collected to the foreigners that pay it.
Let’s see what the revenue estimates are for spec tax raised in Victoria to be spent here by the govt. Based on the $110m govt total revenue so far, given Victoria is 1/10 of population of spec tax area, that would be $11m of affordable housing coming to us . But the fact the revenue is skewed towards high house prices ($1.6m) and foreigners, I predict that Victoria will see less than $11m as most will go to Vancouver housing.
How many affordable houses will get built here in Victoria with $11m from the provincial govt spread across Greater Victoria? …20?
People tend to sell either because they need to, or they want to and prices have gone up to make that desirable. When prices are going down what’s left are the people that need to sell. And that group only grows substantially when the economy is bad and unemployment rises, which it isn’t.
I don’t understand the distinction between foreign and BC speculators. Wasn’t your previous complaint that it would hit largely BC owners? Now it turns out not to be the case and that’s also bad?
btw, the numbers I posted for revenue estimates would be using the 2019 and onward rates (rates were lower in 2018). And the average price was actually $1.6m according to the govt, making it more likely that most of the spec tax money is from Vancouver and will end up being spent by the govt for affordable housing in Vancouver according to the law.
Hopefully the govt will release the revenue figures for Victoria area, so we can see how much will come back to Victoria for affordable housing.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/stubborn-b-c-alberta-homeowners-unwilling-to-sell-real-estate-royal-lepage-1.1284664
Maybe these “stubborn” owners just like living in their homes.
If you run the numbers. Based on an average housing price of $1m, the revenue would be
Foreigners $92m
Satellite (foreigners) $64m
BCers $7m ($12m before the tax credit)
ROC $7m
As mentioned, still 23K people to declare. And maybe the average isn’t $1m. But given the numbers above, so far 12K people is far less than the 32K previous govt estimate. And the tiny contribution from BCers ($7m) shows that this tax isn’t about speculators, because many if not most speculators are BCers. Looks like 90% of the revenue is from foreigners, so they should just rename as it a “foreigners should sell” tax.
Also, I’d expect most of that “foreigner” money is from Vancouver, so given that the money is to be spent by the provincial govt in the area where it was raised, I’d expect Victoria to see maybe $10m from this spec tax so far. Enough for 20 affordabling housing units?… seems like a drop in the bucket when we have 5,000 units under construction.
There’s no way that would pass. Most people that already live here already own at least one car. You can’t rezone neighbourhoods with no support from existing residents. Also, the heritage association would have a hissy fit.
Early B.C. speculation tax figures show foreign owners hardest hit
So far, 12,029 owners have paid the tax. However, roughly 23,000 people still have not completed their declaration or exemption forms, which could significantly change the makeup of the figures in the weeks ahead.
Of the 12,029 owners that have paid the tax so far:
• 38 per cent (4,585 people) were foreign owners who live outside of Canada but own B.C. property that is vacant more than six months of the year.
• 27 per cent (3,241 people) were satellite families, defined by B.C. as a household in which 50 per cent or more of the income comes from outside Canada.
• 20 per cent (2,410 people) were B.C. residents, who own more than one property that is vacant more than six months of the year.
• 13 per cent (1,555 people) were Canadian residents who live in provinces outside of B.C.
• Two per cent (238 people) were defined as other (such as properties held through corporations and trusts, developers, often with multiple owners).
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/early-speculation-tax-figures-show-foreign-owners-hardest-hit
Herpa: Then maybe we need to increase the portion of public housing if we dont have the job sector. We could partner with Vancouver if need be.
@Barrister that won’t work.. we don’t have the job sector to attract all the people to buy here.. not do we have the infrastructure for that dense of population down town..
The solution is to zone all of James Bay and Vic West for high rises up to forty floors. Waive the 20% affordability rule if the building is over thirty floors. No parking requirements and the city can throw in free bus passes to any condo owner in the new towers. At about forty new towers and about 500 units per tower that should help solve the problem. Naturally bicycle parking must be provided. Phase two would be to rezone all of Fernwood and North Park for at least thirty story towers or maybe do both at the same time. The parkaides should be demolished and public housing towers of a similar height can be erected.
Right, although the cities can control AirBnB if they don’t like it.
As for rentals, again I think the solution is building purpose built rentals (which is what is happening) rather than being dependent on private condos and then having all the associated downside for renters when condo values explode
No it’s not. The more stock that is added to the market, the better. When the $2 mil house gets sold or rented the effect on the whole market is bigger than that of a smaller property. Remember the new occupant of that house leaves their former residence which then becomes available, and so on.
Same goes for building a new property. But of course it takes a lot less space to build 1000’s of new condos than the same number of houses.
But more “vacant” condos are rented out on AirBnB – with the accompanying lawbreaking, annoyance to neighbours, and tax evasion – than are actually left empty IMHO. And the issue isn’t really whether the stock of condos is limited in the long run, but what the rental stock is right now.
NIMBY’s does not approve
Nice post, the Post B-20 chart is informative. All cities took a hit, of course Vancouver the worst.
BCREA suggests sales down 10% due to b20 guidelines:
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/mortgage-stress-test-sales-bc-2019
The British Columbia Real Estate Association has released a report suggesting that home sales in BC would have been 10% higher — or about 7,500 sales — without the federally-mandated B20 Mortgage Stress Test.
While several Canadian markets experienced a sharp decline in home sales in 2018, BC faced a much more intense and prolonged decline, it says.
While provincial policies affected this decline, the B20 stress test played a pivotal role as well, according to the BCCREA.
While the B20 guideline was endorsed to stabilize the housing market by making it more affordable, it has had the unintended consequence of pushing several newer Canadian buyers out of the real estate market.
In fact, after the B20 guideline came into effect in January 2018, there was a 20% drop in newer buyers.
Despite provincial interest rates and affordability affecting the decline in home sales in BC in 2018, the British Columbia Real Estate Association report suggests that our province was more profoundly affected by the stress test, causing the province to lose approximately $500 million in economic activity.
High-end market slow down showing up in price. Home on Dallas Road today sold for $2,087,000 with a previous purchase price of $2,260,000 in 2017.
I agree, however it seems as if the self serving government are looking for creative ways to create more taxes upon taxes instead of finding solutions and solve problems.
Grant
It would seem to me the Victoria Council is not there yet or even close.
Really good ideas being pitched in this thread about supply/demand on condos/SFH – it also coincides well with what Owen Bigland said in a recent vlog, that efficiency is really becoming key in development. (not just energy efficiency, but building with features that customers truly want, getting the unit type/count breakdown correct (studio/1bdrm/2bdrm) etc. Hopefully government insiders are reading and taking notes. (I won’t hold my breath)
I agree. More supply is the best solution, rather than trying to reduce demand.
Not really sure. I’ve not previously considered splitting it by condo/detached.
Here’s the thing about condos, I think the much better solution to condo availability is to build more of them and invest in techniques to make them cheaper (building technology, reducing red tape, efficiencies in engineering, etc). Right now we are not there with rampant NIMBYism, bureaucratic overreach and delays in many municipalities. Given that environment the spec tax makes sense because the supply side is so inefficient. If that environment was more favourable to new supply then I don’t think we need the spec tax on condos anymore.
$2,000 tax credit only available to defray B.C. income taxes (in most cases this is representing a potential 400k spec tax exemption for BCers compared to non BCers)
That is a good story: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/st-john-s-restaurant-feeds-hungry-1.5203588
yep
For 2019 and onwards, the speculation and vacancy tax rate will vary, depending on your residency and where you pay income tax:
•2% for foreign owners and satellite families.
•0.5% for British Columbians and other Canadian citizens or permanent residents who are not members of a satellite family
I thought the spec tax regulation treats all Canadian the same, regardless where they are from, BC or MB?
Yes, good idea. And am I correct that this represents a change in your opinion on this important aspect of spec tax?
Because awhile back there was a discussion about a Winnipeg Doctor with a Sidney condo that he used for vacations (one week every six).
I interpreted your comments to be that this guy should have to pay the tax (or sell the condo), and you detailed the reasons here…
https://househuntvictoria.ca/2018/03/26/spec-tax-revised/#comment-41197
So are you now saying the Winnipeg Doctor should get to stay “spec tax free” in his Sidney condo?
ok interesting take on the demand side. Ya I see that logic. Lots of area in the core to tear something down and put up condos. Where SFH take up a lot more space and not so easy to replace. I see what you are saying.
The foreign demand may actually help create supply for locals. I like that thinking Leo. That thinking is way too progressive for our politicians I think.
Not joking. I’m not really concerned about $500k condos because there should be no shortage of those in the long run. If one of them is bought up by a vacationer then more will be built and the additional money is for both the purchase and the property taxes are actually a net positive to the community.
I don’t agree with the idea that condo inventory has to be protected like an endangered species. Yes it makes sense to ensure it isn’t being bought up purely for speculation and kept 100% empty but I don’t see an issue with partial occupancy.
For condos it is much more productive to focus on the supply side both on more of it and cheaper supply through innovative building methods than to reduce demand side.
Thanks for clarifying. I didn’t realize foreigners (and satellite families) paid a higher spec tax.
Although to a degree I do understand the rationale. If a couple lives on a tropical island for 7 months of the year to avoid Canadian income taxes, but use the local services the other 5 months, why not get them to pay some additional local tax? Although I am sure most will have found a loophole in this case, like maybe getting one of their kids to “rent” the house for a few of the months they are gone.
However I do agree the spec tax should be the same for everyone (if levied at all).
Leo I assume you know what I mean or you are joking. I think getting a 500k condo back on the market and with a local is more valuable than a 2 million dollar home. Assuming the legislation actually works.
Anyways I have changed my view on this tax. As a revenue driver I am fine.
Eh? Premium detached properties are extremely supply limited. Can’t make more of those.
A 2 million plus house does not limit supply either. This tax was always about revenue and perception. Government should just call it that and everyone move on. Governments can tax what they want. The less impact it has on the average taxpayers and or economy. the less likely it is going to cause them to get booted out. Hate taxes but happy if someone else is paying it especially if they do not reside here.
Desert is the key word there.
That’s zero sum though. A Victoria resident in the same home pays the same property taxes.
I’m not entirely on board with the spec tax, but I also care not at all about the ability of retired vacationers to own a house here.
What about dialing back the spec tax to only apply to houses and not condos? I can’t see the problem with a vacation condo being left empty half the time since condos are not fundamentally supply limited.
Former Landlord,
There is no mixup at my end. The spec tax has been challenged, and if you read the filings, it includes NAFTA and Americans prominently as part of the class action (as well as ROC). Google it and you’ll find the filings.
I am not challenging the legality of a spec tax (in Victoria, Oakland) or elsewhere. The specific issue under discussion is charging foreigners more than other Canadians (ROC). Foreigners pay 4X rate than BCers, and 4X rate of ROC. I believe as do many lawyers that it is illegal under NAFTA to charge Americans more than ROC people (Eg. Alberta). As part of NAFTA, this is also Canadian law, and can be challenged in a BC court, without going to NAFTA panels etc.
@guest_61650 , I think you are mixing up the spec tax and the foreign buyers tax. The spec tax is for everybody, not just foreigners. I think it is only the foreign buyers tax that is being challenged on grounds of NAFTA rules. This California couple would not have to pay the foreign buyers tax if they sell.
As for Canadians owning homes in California, if they owned in Oakland they would have to pay the empty property tax there and San Fran is also considering a similar tax.
If the California couple want a vacation home on the Island they can buy up in Qualicum Beach where there is no housing shortage and no spec tax.
Lots of Canadians own in California, for example Coachella Valley (desert, Palm Springs). https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article197965519.html “[Canadians are] up to one-quarter of home purchases in the desert.”
Canadians pay the same property tax as a California local would buying the same house at the same time. Prop 13 is nothing about taxing foreigners more than other Americans. It limits taxes (and tax increases until the house is sold), so taxes new owners (from anywhere including native Californians) more than existing homeowners. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
Even if they aren’t employing or investing here, as a Beach Drive/Oak Bay homeowner/visitor they paid more annual taxes than the many BCers.
That one home can house a household that works and pays income taxes.
“May”, i.e. you have no evidence.
Jim Pattison and who else?
Not the same mechanism, but under Prop 13 a Canadian who buys a property in California will pay far more property taxes than the average local. Anyway a moot issue (see previous).
400 more boxes on 49 acre lot that conveniently located between Costco and Home Depot.
https://www.goldstreamgazette.com/news/new-development-eyed-for-50-acre-site-beside-home-depot/
Patrick, they most have spent thousands on both flowers and gardeners each year.
LeoS: Ten years fixed at that low rate is almost unbeatable. I can see rates going up two points a lot sooner than going down one point. Pretty close to free money but more important a lot of piece of mind.
Wow, 10 year rate at 2.89%.
I should really refinance my variable.
https://www.ratespy.com/10-year-fixed-rates-break-record-but-dont-get-one-says-broker-07099981
Another lose-lose pointless casualty of the spec tax. Hard to see that Victoria is better off with these people gone, for one home freed up. Rich people from California with homes here may also be employing and investing here.
Lots of Canadians have vacation homes in California, and they don’t smoke us out of the homes by taxing 4X property tax because we’re Canadians. Hopefully the NAFTA challenge will be won, and these Californians will get refunded whatever they paid in spec tax.
Barrister
I was sad to see that the house on Beach in Oak Bay with the wonderful carpet of ever changing flowers is up for sale. Doubt if any new owner is going to keep up the flower display in the same way.
The couple lived in California and this was more or less a vacation home for them I believe.
At least Colwood is thinking about how to transport people without cars: https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/colwood-council-approves-idea-of-passenger-only-ferry-to-downtown-victoria-1.23879609
Interesting discussion on Facebook in response to this VictoriaBuzz article: https://www.victoriabuzz.com/2019/07/construction-begins-on-48-unit-affordable-rental-building-in-colwood/
A new apartment building will be coming online in Colwood in late 2020. The click-bait style headline in FB implied that the apartments will be affordable and aimed at families but the rents will be $1,300/mo for 1 bed and $1,650/mo for 2 bed. Within the article they define that these are aimed at incomes ranging from $52k to $66k.
Whether this is affordable or not was hotly debated but what I found interesting was the number of young adults who have moved away. As some snubbed their choices back east being snowy, the responders said quality of life plus disposable income to actually go somewhere warm was key to moving out.
Green space/too much concrete/ and built for cars. No plan for moving people around other than cars.
They are building to get as much stuff in a smallest space as possible.
McKenzie is not going to fix the traffic issue as much as people think.
https://www.langford.ca/assets/Maps/Land~Use/DP_Areas.pdf
See link to Langford’s development permit areas pdf.
@guest_61655, what exactly do you mean by textbook disaster? Because the lots are too small, not enough greenspace, that traffic will be too bad or do you believe there are other contributing factors that will make it a disaster?
BTW I know a few people who have changed their residency from another province to not pay the spec tax…To them it worked out financially. Not happy but did it.
Soon but it will just keeping getting pushed towards Sooke.
Good luck with that road.
Planning for growth in the CRD will turn into a text book disaster when looked back..
Lot sizes on that development down to 2000 sqft. Good times. Well those boxes need to go somewhere and they’re definitely not being built in the core.
And they are proposing 10 affordable homes of the 450. https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/langford-councillors-advance-development-plan-for-forest-despite-residents-dismay-1.23879437
Wonder how much longer until Langford runs out of developable land?
Looks like that large chunk of land in Langford will get developed. Its is in private hands so not surprising. 20 years from now I wonder if they will look back and say WTF did we do with planning of the city as a whole. I guess the days of upland/ ten mile and broadmead developments are done with big lots and trails and large parks and so on. Not economically feasible anymore. Not a big fan of concrete. Even that 2 million plus development at the cow pasture by Mount Doug is not my cup of tea.
Times are a changing.
The silence/calm before the storm? 😉
Yep that explains the sales surge. Now the market is free to crash
Quiet on here today, maybe everybody bought a house last month and they are busy packing.
Yes more or less assuming sales are representative of the housing mix.
Of course that’s just the median and not very useful to determine change in assessment on any given property. Some places will definitely be dropping in assessed value.
BC assessment uses more than sales prices as well.
With median sales prices (in the chart above) about 3% above (July 2018) assessments, should we be expecting July 2019 assessments to be up about 3% too? If not, what metrics do they use for assessed values?
It does not look like we are anywhere close to major house price decreases.
Inventory only 14% above this time last year. Painfully slow growth.
There is a lack of quality or even common-sense livable inventory in the core under $1 million. Seems like 80-90% of houses are chopped up or have had some questionable renovations over the years. Super rare to find a well-maintained logical layout home and when one does come it often has multiple offers.
I made a backup offer for a house in Maplewood area. The offer is higher than asking price but just 0.9% lower than assessment. I assume the accepted offer price is close to mine. The nice houses in Maplewood area seem to have high sold price over assessment. The house I like is in very good condition and assessment is higher than many other houses I have been tracking in that area too, not sure why. Maybe it is because of the street where it is located, quiet and next to the park.
I was sad to see that the house on Beach in Oak Bay with the wonderful carpet of ever changing flowers is up for sale. Doubt if any new owner is going to keep up the flower display in the same way.
Renter: it sounds like they may take a bit of a hit after transactions costs are factored in.
LeoS; brilliant on the stats.
One of the properties we talked about quite a bit in Cordova Bay is back on the market – 1150 Timber Lane (MLS 413210). I was surprised they didn’t opt for the spring market but now listing as we head into the slow days of summer. That house has sold 3 times in the last 4 or so years with the last at $884,500. Listed today at $900k.