Vote housing
If you hate politics, please skip ahead to below the break for an update on weekly numbers.
Early voting is underway in the local elections, and general election day is on October 15th for all local municipalities. Very few people care about local elections even though the decisions made there arguably have the biggest impact on the city and housing availability. That apathy is apparent in voter turnout figures. The last federal and provincial elections saw voter turnout at 63% and 55% respectively, while turnout in Victoria was 45%, Saanich a measly 38%, and Langford a shocking 18%.
Before we get into why it’s worth voting in the municipal elections, I should back up a little to explain my path to this point in real estate. Back in 2008 or so I started to get vaguely interested in Victoria housing. Friends were buying condos after university and we were wondering if we should do the same (plus there was a super cool loft on Hillside that I wanted). But house prices had just literally doubled in Victoria and after an epic housing crash in the US it seemed like just a matter of time until we experienced the same.
So I read housing blogs, gathered data, and researched the market to see if I could make any sense of it. I started writing for the old househunt blog and learned more about the market including how important affordability was to long term price movements. After the gyrations of the financial crisis the housing market stayed pretty stable while we rented and saved, eventually switching focus from condos to a house before buying in 2013. At that point I thought the market may drop another 5%-10%, but I was satisfied that enough risk had left the market and was willing to eat any further declines. That ended up being the bottom of the market though I certainly didn’t know it at the time.
Given I came at housing analytics from outside of the development or real estate industry, I was always suspicious of calls for more housing supply with was incessantly promoted by those voices (though I got a real estate license in 2016 to access more data, I have never sold houses and never will). Clearly, I thought, calls for more homes by those who would profit from providing them was self interest, and the real culprit was low rates, speculation, investors, foreign buyers, money laundering, or simply a matter of time before the greater fools ran out. For the first 10 years of thinking about the housing market I never wrote about housing supply once in hundreds of articles. Even up until 2018 I was more likely to see the supply narrative with heavy skepticism and apply simplistic comparisons to population growth to conclude there were enough homes.
However after I finally understood why detached houses get less affordable over time, it was clear to me that no matter what happened with prices in the short and medium term, a detached house would get less and less attainable to the average family in the long run. As you can see on the affordability chart below, condos and (probably) townhouse payments stay in a relatively fixed range compared to incomes over time going back 40 years. Detached homes – though subject to the same cycles – show deteriorating affordability, with each cycle peak and valley higher than the last. No surprise in a city with relatively strict limits on sprawl (via policy and geography) and a growing population.
At the same time our zoning reserves the large majority of our land for this housing type that will inexorably become less and less attainable to regular families, while more affordable housing forms are relegated to small scraps of land with each expansion being subject to a multiyear fight.
That all finally clicked for me around 2019, and led to a series of articles examining NIMBYism in Victoria, our broken building process, and takedowns of the types of anti-supply arguments I used to make myself. In 2020 I also served on the Saanich Housing Task Force which was an eye opener to how hard local government works to prevent housing from being built. Listening in to a few public hearings on the most mundane rezonings was the final straw for me to push past my inherent distrust on supply focused arguments. It also made it clear that the housing shortage cannot be solved without fundamental reforms to our restrictive zoning system. That’s not to say that demand measures aren’t important (in fact tackling them is key groundwork for supply side reforms), but in the end we have to resolve the housing shortage to really improve affordability.
So when a frustrated house hunter (Nathan Lambert) approached me last year to start a local housing advocacy group I jumped at the chance. Driven by lots of volunteers that stepped up, Homes for Living has been growing quickly, showing up to public hearings to support individual projects and rallying around substantial housing reforms like Victoria’s Rapid Deployment of Affordable Housing (success) and Missing Middle (deferred) votes while working on projects like the vote tracker to hold council accountable on housing approvals. However the big push has been for the election, where we’ve been working on ranking candidates in Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay, and Esquimalt based on how committed they are to pro-housing reforms. Rankings were based on voting records for incumbents, a survey sent out to all candidates, an analysis of their platforms and public statements. That was all a ton of work spearheaded by Philip MacKellar and others on the team. Details of scores and methodology are available on the webpage, while the top ranked candidates are shown below.
Of course housing is not everything and candidates (and voters) also have other priorities. However many other key issues depend on affordable housing, whether it’s reducing homelessness, mitigating climate change, or reducing the labour shortage. It’s a big hairy problem that will require more senior levels to step up too, but land use reform is critical if we want to make progress. If you agree I would encourage you to check out the detailed rankings and please consider voting. Thanks for your consideration.
Also here are the weekly numbers courtesy of the VREB.
| October 2022 |
Oct
2021
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk 1 | Wk 2 | Wk 3 | Wk 4 | ||
| Sales | 115 | 745 | |||
| New Listings | 318 | 866 | |||
| Active Listings | 2270 | 1036 | |||
| Sales to New Listings | 36% | 86% | |||
| Sales YoY Change | -43% | ||||
| Months of Inventory | 1.4 | ||||
Little change from the end of September to start the month. Sales continue at a similarly sluggish pace, while listings are running about 20% ahead and inventory is roughly double. Last October we had more sales in the latter half of the month, but we waited in vain for a similar bump in September that never materialized. We are past the fall peak in new listings and should see a gradual decline for the rest of the year.
The sales to list ratio is down dramatically from the year ago, and if we don’t see that end of month sales bump the gap will widen further.
Properties are still moving, but only with compromises on price on the part of sellers. However while sellers are willing to make deals, they are not desperate to do so. For context, in the depths of the great financial crisis this measure was down around 93%, with the average place went for 4% below the last listed price VS only 2% now.
Economic data has been coming in mixed, but with job figures once again positive and no broad based relief from inflation yet, it seems the next rate hike on October 26th is in the bag. The central bank rate which drives variable rate mortgages and the 5 year bonds which influences fixed rates usually track quite closely. In the last 45 years there’s really only been one sustained period – in the early 90s – where the bank rate stayed substantially higher than the bond market. That could happen this time if the market thinks central banks are overshooting their response, but bond yields have just cracked the yearly high again, putting fixed rates again under pressure.
Nationally not all the provinces have reacted the same to those rising rates. Hardest hit have been Ontario, BC, and ironically relatively affordable Alberta where prices are now only 13% above pre-pandemic values. The prairie provinces have been the most stable both on the upswing and in the face of tighter credit, while prices in Quebec and Atlantic Canada exploded but have held up well so far. Even with extended higher rates I doubt the extremely cheap prices in eastern Canada will ever return.
New post: https://househuntvictoria.ca/2022/10/17/what-would-it-take-to-get-affordability-back/
“That’s not inflation; that’s just a higher price forever”
I think he forgot that is also what inflation is, since central banks are mandated to avoid deflation.
Some good quotes from Wealthsimple’s new newsletter, called TLDR:
Also, this fine haiku:
Buy the dip, they say
Nine dips later, I’m back in
My mom’s basement suite
Serious question. Exactly how many paid jobs are there in Victoria. Are there really all that many people working downtown in the first place? I have looked for the stats with no real luck.
Right. If there were jobs, affordable homes and infrastructure, we could double our population. 750,000 would make us the same population as Winnipeg (which has plenty of sprawl available). With remote work, there are likely more work-from-Victoria jobs available. Sprawl (with affordable homes) won’t stop.
Why? Should I tell my kids to suck it up and commute?
“ I voted in Colwood for the first time and had a great experience doing so, and my kids “voted” too for a new spash park feature. I voted for anyone I could research easily and half the councillors running didn’t even have a website / Facebook page so were easy to eliminate.”
Cadborosaurus – probably means you accidentally voted for know it all people there to push their anti development agenda and who can’t handle others having different opinions. Some of the people who got elected spent the last year being belligerent on FB community groups. But then turned around and presented themselves in a different and much more palatable light for the election. Will be interesting to see how they behave on Council.
Nothing but wishful thinking.
Implying there is an infinite amount of people moving to Victoria. A true Victorian statement if I’ve ever seen one. ‘Everyone in not only Canada, but the whole world and beyond will move to Victoria if we build enough homes because we are the Hawaii of Canada. Only better because we have medical and no guns.’
Marko is right. The more density we have the less sprawl there will be. It may not be 1 to 1 ratio but it’s certainly linked.
I read somewhere on the internet that big developers like to kick puppies. Since then, I’m suspicious of all housing, even my own.
Sure, and you put it better than I did. But demand side measures including accommodative monetary policy tend to have greater effects on certain markets in Canada. Toronto is one, Vancouver is the other. Victoria is strongly influenced by the latter. Victoria and its surrounding communities didn’t in a few short years become laughably unaffordable to almost everyone because we suddenly ran out of housing. I almost feel like this has been forgotten somehow in a recent whirlwind of politically charged fervor. The rate of building multi unit housing and densification in this region has been remarkable, and for years now. Like Vancouver, the price growth continued unabated. IMO, affordability is now likely to improve owing mainly to monetary policy and a presumably soon-to-be-shrinking economy.
But if you want affordable by design, you need at least some sprawl (i.e., drive till you qualify) or a horrible economy. Density alone has not, as far as I’m aware, generated better affordability because that’s all about being close to major amenities which in turn always drives up relative demand and prices. There’s oodles of room left for sprawl out past the WestCom but it will not be “close to amenities”. That’s what will make it affordable. That and a decent light rail system, but perhaps that’s too expensive…
Good points. And someone building 1,584 units must by definition be a “big developer”. And most HHVers don’t like “big developers”.
Marko- What’s the price of gas in Croatia? Probably twice what it is here. Is there any public transportation? Seems like quite a price difference just to be closer to the city.
Patrick, are you reading the commentary here? The extra 1,500 units will makes rents more expensive and actually make things more unaffordable. In addition the developer or eventual owner of the apartment building(s) will also manipulate the marketplace due to the large number of units and fix the rents of the 1,500 units to those equivalent of Coal Harbour. Who on earth would want to live in a condo anyway?
It is a positive the project was killed.
Just for clarification LCP (limited common property) while “common property” is for the exclusive use of the unit it is assigned to. In a multi-plex you could give the ground orientated units LCP patios/small yards.
Since there is a crisis level shortage of housing, why are we looking at “baby steps” of missing middle projects to build 3 units, but tearing down one in the process. And why do we keep silent here on HHV when projects that would go a long way to solving the housing crisis get killed by council?
For example, the Harris Green project on Yates street. Harrisgreen.com That’s single projects (two sites) will build 1,500 rental apartment units, with 500 of them family friendly (2+ bedrooms). 10-15% affordable units.
Harris Green got flat out rejected by Victoria council in May 2022. I posted about it here https://househuntvictoria.ca/2022/05/24/regions-and-property-types-whats-doing-the-best/#comment-88961
There was near silence on HHV when I posted about that rejection of 1,500 homes, and I don’t think it has been even mentioned by anyone on HHV other than me since.
HHV has an endless narrative of how desperate people are for “shelter”, and how they must have secure rentals. live in the city core, within walking distance of shops and restaurants.
And so when a project to build 1,500 rental units on Yates gets killed, not a peep on HHV from anyone but me. Why the silence from the “homes for families” crowd? Are 2-3 bedroom apartments not good enough? How long do you think it would take for us to get 1,500 units in core city of Victoria out of this slow and inefficient “missing middle” plan.
Looks like we are on pace for 425-450 sales.
In Croatia people buy SFHs 15 km or more from city center when they CAN’T afford a condo in the core. The dream for the majority is a 100m2 (1,100 sqft) 3 bedroom condo close to a park.
This is a 947 sq/ft condo in the building across from mine (25 minute walk to center) so let’s say Jubilee area to downtown Vic. https://www.njuskalo.hr/nekretnine/novogradnja-zagreb-domobranska-luksuzno-opremljen-dizajnerski-stan-oglas-38735959
580k Euro so 780k CND.
40 minute drive (slightly further than Sidney, but not as far as Sooke) you can buy a 2,500 sq/ft SFH on a 14,000 sq/ft lot for 125k Euro -> https://www.njuskalo.hr/nekretnine/tusilovic-kuca-232-m2-okucnicom-1268-m2-bez-provizije-kupce-oglas-25817820 the worst part is even at 125k Euros no one wants to buy something that far away.
90 minute drive and you can buy livable houses for under 50k or like 1/10 of a condo in the core.
Monday numbers (month to date)
Sales: 225 (down 39% from last year)
New lists: 544 (up 20%)
Inventory: 2256 (up 103%). Looks like we might be past the peak for the year.
New post tonight.
Well, in your example it cuts the effect in half, since both families would have to choose a SFH today. I think the reality is most families in a dense city (think almost any major European city) would value proximity to amenities/work/large parks and affordability over having a slice of your own green space. Wasn’t Marko commenting on how land prices in rural Croatia are cratering compared to the cities?
Pushing even half of new development back into the city would be a massive win IMHO.
All around the world families live in 3 bedroom condos. We just haven’t experienced the same pressures on income vs. land cost until now.
What will happen, imo, is as more families move to condo living it will become normalized. Families who want a house will move elsewhere or buy with another family. The math is what it is based on affordable options. No one has to actively persuade anyone. Economic forces in tandem with technological change will do this over time all on their own.
Family #1 would certainly choose the above option and be very happy. But Family #2 is hellbent on a traditional SFH with a backyard, and the existence of Family #1 doesn’t erase the existence of Family #2 and the effects on sprawl Family #2 exerts.
Your theory only works if a) there’s a finite number of people moving to Victoria (there’s not), and b) we can persuade the vast majority of them to opt for a brand new 3-bd strata condo with shared backyard in the core (good luck with that).
Paragraph, not post.
It’s not one or the other. Local factors are responsible for differences between regions, monetary policy is responsible for national trends.
No Marko they are not calling each other. Just like you never had to call other condo owners to find what they were asking for rents. But please keep up the strawman arguments.
???
How’s that relevant?
Penultimate sentence in the paragraph you quoted from.
It would be a relief to me if people could separate out facts from opinion. Facts are really important. Opinion also important to a degree, but individual opinions that don’t fit the facts are kind of exhausting to see repeated over and over and over… in my opinion.
Here are some facts I see:
Any solutions proposed to the situation have to fit the facts. In the meantime, people will adjust as they have been doing by:
By failing to address this situation proactively we are all dealing with the impacts of increased homelessness and decreased affordability for younger people. Densification will happen, imo. Best to get out in front and plan for it in whatever way you want to based on your preferences.
Then why have prices in Alberta stayed sane?
Because there’s enough housing being built.
Speaking of sprawl I was just in Calgary driving the new ring road through the countryside vs. Deerfoot Trail, it’s great. Then spotted a brand new subburb built right outside it. How long until this large flowing ring road gets jammed up? I love the roads there, wide and easy to drive but the sprawl addiction is something else.
You’re aware that my central argument for a while now has been that pricing is generally driven by monetary policy, not by any factors local to that region. What I mean is that prices have escalated drastically despite what Langford has done. If a lack of density was the issue, you don’t have to look very far to see a city with far more density and far higher prices. It’s also true that regions with higher populations (especially coastal) generally will cost quite a bit more regardless, but monetary policy seems to amplify these pricing effects and resultant volatility in these regions. Density (or lack of it) doesn’t seem to have the same effect.
You may recall our discussing years ago, your helpful “Victoria affordability” graph. I had commented that it actually looked very similar to many other more populated urban US regions along the coast – a slow steady decline in affordability, especially in SFH’s, as the decades go by (mind you, 2008 was helpful that way). Victoria wasn’t any different.
It’s not to say there’s no issue with the number of and type of homes being built in X region, rather there are other more important factors driving pricing dynamics. This is why I don’t think that Eby’s announcement is going to be the silver bullet some people think. More broadly, I’m not convinced that the balance of academic literature on housing density and pricing supports the notion that the greater the density, the greater the affordability.
That may be ideal, but it’s not entirely practical. Langford has significant open space to accommodate that growth. Victoria, Saanich and many of the others are already built up, and I would imagine it’s probably politically easier to build on vacant land where few live than it is to apply for a permit in a populated area to rezone, tear a SFH down and throw in a condo tower. In the latter, it’s a bit like the climate debate or who pays taxes – many say “we want more housing”, but when it comes down to making it happen or enduring its effects, it’s invariably someone else that should bear the brunt of that accommodation.
Eby is trying to counter that but in the end, I don’t think he’ll be successful. Even with the local government election results, most people probably don’t want a condo, and don’t truly want a townhouse. Indeed, watch what happens if they start proposing townhouses and towers en masse. And, even if the population were uncompromisingly amenable, developers are likely too skiddish at the moment to make large investments at this stage of the market. By then, there’ll be another LG in power anyways.
Ergo, I continue to maintain any shift that occurs in the housing composition will take many, many years to change any affordability metrics – and I would be surprised if that effect would be substantially more than minor, especially if they continue to create late-cycle (i.e. luxury or investment orientated 1 BRD) housing. On the latter point, let’s hope not.
Heritage value, COV would never allow that as part of a re-zoning application.
They have been making promises about the Roundhouse for at least ten years and it has never happened. Doubt that it ever will. Eventually a tower will be built there instead in all likelihood.
It won’t prevent sprawl, but it will reduce sprawl. 6,000 people living in towers is 6,000 people not living in SFHs. If I didn’t have a condo as an option I would live in a SFH (I can easily afford a SFH if that floated my boat).
Not a tower, but to illustrate my point let’s say we have a missing middle three bedroom strata condo with a small LCP (limited common property yard) in the Oaklands area. I would like to think there is a chance a family choose this missing middle three bedroom condo over a starter SFH in Sooke; however, right now the 3 bed condo is not an option for a family.
Obviously at an increase in population of 500,000/year in Canada there will be urban sprawl all over the place, but we can make an effort to make the sprawl smaller.
So let’s build towers. Fine. But let’s not argue that, by building those towers, it will somehow prevent sprawl. Because it won’t.
Marko, focus. I never said towers shouldn’t exist. I said more towers won’t prevent sprawl. We will always be able to fill towers with tower-lovers. But no number of new towers will prevent SFH-lovers from demanding more sprawl so they can live in a SFH.
But we’ll get both, because Y won’t prevent X.
The 6,000 people in towers won’t prevent 6,000 other people from demanding more sprawl because they want a SFH with a backyard within a hour’s drive from the core.
Where would I physically live if no towers existed? Would you not agree that I would live in a SFH somewhere in the CRD?
This response doesn’t even make sense.
The problem with density and affordability is density can often make neighborhoods a lot more attractive to potential buyers (I know this is a foreign concept to the majority of HHV readership but some of us like getting our groceries on foot). Just think Vic West again. When Bosa finishes their 10 towers at Dockside and Bayview finishes their 10 towers and you have brand new commercial (resturants, etc) at Dockside and the Roundhouse is up and running all of a sudden a very desirable place to live. They will probably have a hipster market at roundhouse with a hipster sandwich place selling $24 sandwiches with a 30 minute line-up.
So no, the 20 towers coming to Vic West in the next 20 to 30 years will not make Vic West more affordable, quite the opposite. I still think housing 20 x 300 = 6,000 people in Vic West is a better idea than sprawl.
Marko, you are a patient man.
Let’s say @ Belmont they are asking $2,000 per month and @ Colwood Corners they are asking $1,800 per month. Would you not agree given that 90% of renters would rent at Colwood Corners? 10% might pay the $200 premium to be at Belmont as construction is almost over, close to Galloping Goose Trail, etc., but the majority would take the $1,800 rent.
So you are telling me the president of the company that owns the apartment building at Colwood Corners calls the president of the company in Nova Scotia that owns the apartment at Belmont to fix a price at $2,000 then they dial up the 20+ other presidents of companies that own apartment buildings on the Westshore just so everyone is on the same page? Then they track down each individual investor in strata buildings to make sure they are undercutting? Then they track down everyone with a suite on the Westshore (which is every other house) to make sure they are in on it as well?
No one is SETTING rates equivalent to the downtown core, the market (the potential tenants) are CHOOSING by free will to pay those rates, which may be equivalent to the downtown core.
Victoria will never ever again be “affordable.” It is one of the most desirable cities in one of the best countries in the world and the city happens to be surrounded by water. However, if we don’t build it will be even less affordable in my opinion.
Back to the hotdog example.
I wrote yesterday
Yesterday we had 6 rental units for 6 people wanting to live in Victoria. Rent was $1,000 per month.
We built 2 more rentals, now we have 8 rental units but 10 people want to live here. The max affordability of the 8th person is $1,200 per month.
I built more rentals but I don’t understand why rents went up.
Let me add
We build 3 more rentals, now we have 9 rental units but 10 people want to live here. The max affordability of the 9th person is $1,100 per month.
The rents still go up, but not as much.
Ya density and affordable is a bit of head deek It seems that the price of a unit on a 6 story new build and 12 story unit is very much the same Developers fighting to always go higher and add more units doesn’t seem to make them more affordable and you could make the argument that the floors at the top are more expensive
So people including myself that live in Vic West towers where would we live if the towers didn’t exist, would I cease to exist?
1) Janion- 1610 Store st/456 Pandora
2) Era- 787 Yates st
3) Union- 517 Fisgard st/528 pandora
4) Falls- 707 Courtney st
5) the Oriental- 562 yate
6) Leiser- 534 Yates
7) Astoria – 751 Fairfield
8) Mermaid wharf- 409 swift
9) 595 Pandora-595 Pandora
10) Leiser- 524 Yates st
11) Vogue -599 Pandora
12) Cityzen- 613 herald
13) Legato-960 Yates
14) Palladian- 1602 quadra
15) Monacco- 610 johnson
16) SoHo- 848 Mason
17) Juliet – 760 Johnson
No. The blasting and sprawl happens regardless of how many towers you throw up in Vic West, because many people don’t want to live in a tower and are willing to trade a horrible commute for a SFH and a backyard.
This is a false argument we hear so often from the pro-density folks.
Yes they are running a business but they are also setting the high bar for the rental market. By now you should have come to the understanding that there is no way that building projects like this is going to make rental housing affordable in the short term.
When you rented your condo, you had to compete with many other condo owners that wanted to rent there units too. Since the vacancy rate was low you could pick and chose but you still had to be competitive with many other available suites. You were just one owner of many owners and rents rose gradually over time. This isn’t the same as one company with enough units that it can set rents and then influence the remaining market. They and other complexes like them then have enough market share to set rental prices. Which they are setting at rates equivalent to the downtown core.
We are constantly fed the BS that projects like these will make housing affordable. Increase the supply and prices will come down. That’s true in a free and open market with multiple vendors and buyers. But that’s not what we have here. We have one vendor and multiple consumers.
You simply can not build affordable housing under the current model. The very act of building causes more people to migrate here for jobs that adds to the need for more housing and causes a shortage of workers in other services as they chose to work in construction rather than the service industries that pay less.
The market will take care of itself – eventually. Slowing down construction and raising unemployment in the construction industry will cause the excessiveness of rampant construction to reverse itself. Transient workers will leave the city and others will take on the lower paying vacant service industries jobs. This is the boom/bust cycle of real estate.
The cause of our current predicament is that we have had too low interest rates for too long coupled with excessive construction. However, a correction in the real estate market could go very wrong and become severe as Greater Victoria could move from a shortage to a glut of housing. And that is the bust part of the cycle. And just like the boom part of the cycle, no one can control the bust side either. Unless you want to bulldoze entire subdivisions and turn them back into farmland.
Think of all the construction workers and those that are employed in industries that support construction. What would happen to the real estate market if all those jobs were gone?
If Victoria ended with a glut of housing, I don’t think you would see a new house built in Victoria for a decade or more.
Nice to see a grassroots organization sweep Langford and boot the council and Mayor. I tried to watch some of their meetings this year and was stunned to see how they operate, cutting people off and outright denying others chances to speak. Passing things without even looking up to count votes. When you operate like a machine that’s so out of touch with your voter base it’s time to go.
I voted in Colwood for the first time and had a great experience doing so, and my kids “voted” too for a new spash park feature. I voted for anyone I could research easily and half the councillors running didn’t even have a website / Facebook page so were easy to eliminate.
This is a silly argument. Langford has been absorbing the growth of the entire region, but obviously their prices are not set by what happens in Langford, they are set by the demand in the region as a whole.
And yes 30% growth every 5 years is stressful for the residents. Better to spread out our very modest 1.5% growth to every municipality instead of a bunch doing almost nothing while one tries to act as the relief valve.
Sigh….they are running a business just like everyone else.
I have a number of rental condos downtown and Vic West. If someone comes to look at one of my condos and says there is a cheaper unit in the building across the street I wouldn’t care either. As a tenant just rent the cheaper unit, what is the big deal? When I was a tenant I rented the best possible value in my opinion. I didn’t go to higher priced units/worse value to let them know there was a better deal I was looking at.
When I list a unit either the market will support my price or it won’t and if doesn’t support my price either I keep the unit vacant or I lower the price. Some other factors at play as well beyond the price. For example, instead of lowering the price you can allow for large dogs, etc. I’ve never allowed pets expect one unit last year I wanted top dollar rent but I didn’t want to invest my time into the unit (11 yrs old, showing wear and tear, I haven’t even painted since new). I knew it was unlikely I would get the rent without allowing for pets so I allowed pets including large dogs. Rented it out to a great tenant with a large dog. The market forces pushed me into allowing a large dog.
This is a federal problem (immigration) and bigger picture global (population is growing @ 70 million per year).
On a municipal level the best we can do, in my opinion, is density.
One tower on a 20,000 sqft lot in Vic West can accommodate 300 people. The alternative is to blast apart a mountain in Langford or Sooke to accomdate these 300. Not to mention commutes, energy use, etc.
Actually the opposite. People are going to exist regardless. When you can’t accommodate them inside the community, they just build outside the community, sprawling farther and farther out, and needing more time in a vehicle to get to their destination until the planet looks like a burnt out husk like we see in The Lorax.
Total Population of Langford is 44 thousand.
Dar El Salam adds that many people every month.
Prodigious.
The logical conclusion from your position is perpetual never-ending “growth” and destruction of the natural environment until the planet looks like a burnt out husk like we see in The Lorax.
+2. This time, I’m completely aligned with your cynicism. There had been a lot of breathless reaction to his policy intentions, including some referring to them as a “game changer” with respect to achieving affordability. I did not, and still don’t, think they are.
I suspect that affordability improvement, at least in the coming few years, will be from monetary policies interacting with economic dynamics, not local government being compelled or inspired to meet building targets or zoning requirements.
Langford has been building density at a prodigious rate for many years, and yet its affordability has deteriorated horribly over the last several years. Now Langford has high prices, higher property taxes, density everywhere, way more traffic, loud congestion and a population that is burned out by all of it…at least judging by the voting results. I honestly don’t know why people are surprised by what happened in their election.
I absolutely see a role for local government policies around housing, but for any real effects it will probably be many years, if not decades, for policy changes at that level to really move the needle in the market writ large.
I don’t get why people think triplexes or sixplexes will be a problem? It could equally be amazing! I live in a condo & love it! Was feeling down tonight until a neighbour let me come over & look at their recent renovation. Another neighbour left a little pumpkin at my door for my kitten today. (They don’t have a pet, but we let our kitten go play at their place sometimes & they noticed our kitten liked their pumpkin!) In our building teenagers are buddies with 5 years olds – their families go to the beach together sometimes. They share a community garden plot nearby. Condo living can be amazing. It doesn’t necessarily destroy neighbourhoods – in fact can indeed build communities.
I think there is a misunderstanding that Langford voted out Stu because he was pro development. In my opinion it wasn’t about development but how that whole council was run. They have lost touch and the only good thing they were good at was sprawl. There doesn’t seem to be any long term plan to accommodate the fast growth rate out here.
Stu Young has been mayor for 30 years and many feel like he has lost touch. A quote from Times Colonist from Szpak sums it up:
“Mayor Young was saying he was going to keep doing what he was doing, despite all the concerns and voices he was hearing in the community,” Szpak said. “This is what happens.”
I hope that the new council doesn’t become anything like Oak Bay or Saanich but it was definitely time for change in Langford.
Percent of people going for variable mortgages dropped to 44% in August
There have been no rent drops but there are some on craigslist for rent at the rate of a downtown condo. So they are willing to accept a longer lease up time to find a renter. They are not lowering rents but now they have to advertise. That’s a vacancy even if it is for a month or two. And since they command a large section of the rental market, they don’t have to negotiate a lower rent. You can tell them that you can find a cheaper place across the highway but they don’t care. They have so many units that it’s meaningless to them. If you want to live there, then you have to pay their price.
That just makes more people look at other units which drives up those rental prices. Rents like home prices should be significantly lower in Langford but they are not. Until vacancy rates increase significantly the renter is caught between a rock and a hard place as they have no negotiation power. That’s not making affordable housing but it does sound like price gouging.
Eventually, the marketplace will take care of itself and the excessiveness in the rental market will be weeded out. And if the vacancy rate increases and is sustained, only then will you see rent declines in complexes such as these. They can hold out a lot longer than someone with a basement suite to rent.
The strata buildings are under the same manager as the rentals. If you were showing any of these units this year then they would have been re-sales from the initial investors.
For anyone thinking or hoping the interest rate increases will be slowing or stopping anytime soon…
From: https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/g7-fails-reach-intervention-deal-ease-pain-soaring-dollar-2022-10-16/
You do realize only a very very small fraction of the remaining tenants would have higher existing rent than the rent post drop?
Let’s say three years ago they started renting units at $1,700 average and rented out the entire building (which is the case in Victoria due to supply and demand).
Then it went to $1,900, a few people moved out
Then it went to $2,100, a few people moved out
Now it is $2,200
Assuming they drop to $2,000 again almost everyone is under $2,000 because they started at $1,700 and then we had covid (rent freeze) and now we have 1.5%. The few people at $2,100 aren’t going to want to incur moving expenses because they may or may not be able to find a place for $2,000.
Conclusion yet again, company is going to rent at a market value determined by supply and demand. They are not going to leave a unit vacant for a year at a price the market can’t support in an attempt to manipulate or fix the market price. In that time span 5 more apartment buildings will open their doors and start filling up. This isn’t a small town with two apartment buildings and 10 private secondary accommodation suites.
This is a hypothetical example as the rental market is still very tight and above doesn’t apply.
I guess you aren’t going to reply to your claim of 156 investors fixing pricing with one manager?
It isn’t a difficult concept to understand that if the company drops the rent on one of the units, then the remaining tenants will want to negotiate a lower rent. Instead, the company will run a higher vacancy rate rather than lower the rents.
I think I explained that in my hot dog example. Rent goes from $1,000 to $1,200 and two people don’t have a place to live even thought they want to live in Victoria. Obviously if you want to live in Victoria but you are currently working for $20/hr in Calgary and your job prospects in Victoria are $18/hr you aren’t competing for the $2k/month one bedroom.
What matters is the economic tradeoff, i.e. collective incomes and willingness to pay versus rental stock. If the former goes up and the latter doesn’t, prices go up.
But more people simply “wanting” to live somewhere, or to buy something, does not cause prices to rise. I’m sure more people wanted to live in Beverly Hills in 2008 than there were houses, but that didn’t stop prices from falling.
The reason you can’t negotiate is supply and demand. The manager puts the units up for rent for the owner (the company for Nova Scotia) and people pay those rents because they can’t find a better option, and if the potential tenants could find a better option the manager would pick up the phone and call Nova Scotia to let them know they are adjusting the prices lower so they don’t have units sitting vacant.
These aren’t difficult concepts.
What you are referring to isn’t a strata building, it is an apartment building called Crossing at Belmont assessed at $15.428 million owned by one company from Nova Scotia. There is ONE title to the property and the building has 156 apartments. This was never sold to 156 investors who teamed up to fix prices through one property manager.
Apartment buildings have to compete with other apartment buildings and yes apartment buildings have one manager on average. Apartment buildings provide stable housing for people, it is EXACTLY what we need more of.
I represented multiple buyers in the actual strata buildings, Belmont Residences West and Belmont Residences East. For example, my client in Belmont Residences West we sold her house in Happy Valley as she wanted to downsize and she bought a pre-sale Residences West and happily lives there.
The amount of misinformation being provided on HHV is the highest I’ve ever seen in my 15 yrs on here.
Well Marko, the two strata condominium complexes were bought up by investors that list them for rent through a communal property manager. Only a few locals got a chance to bid on buying these 156 units as 97 percent were bought by investors. Now they are rentals offered at the same price as a downtown condo in Victoria. If you don’t like the rent then you don’t get to negotiate. One manager controls all of the suites.
Now how did this help supply or affordability? The same happened to a townhouse development off Leigh Road where 27 townhomes that were under construction were bought by one investor. Not one local had a chance to make an offer to buy a home for themselves or their family.
Now how did this help a person to buy a home or reduce rental rates? It did neither.
This isn’t a free market when this many units can be controlled by two managers. In a smaller community such as Langford this disrupts the rental market. If these same suites were put up for rent by individuals then a renter could negotiate with 156 different owners that would be competing against each other to rent their suite.
So what seems to be the solution? All I seem to hear is “Let’s build more of them!”
+1, I do not believe the needle will move much with Eby’s plans or the COV new pro-housing friendly council.
Will be a lot of talk with poor tangible results.
I meant more bureaucracy in general from municipalities to BC Housing. Just think owner builder exam. We are in a housing crisis, there is a piece of 100% useless bureaucracy adding cost and delays to building housing and literally nothing has been done about it. There has been no investigation of the policy, no assessment, literally nothing. This is just an example of many things.
Re Langford it was time for change but what kind of sucks, imo, is they were the only municipality turning around permits in a reasonable amount of time. If the staff culture at Langford changes as a result of the new council there is no turning back at that point.
There was an individual by the name of “Inspector” that posted on HHV maybe 6 to 12 months ago about how he worked at Langford and when Saanich came for a visit they simply said it wasn’t possible for them to turn around permits as quickly and Langford and they simply left without bothering to absorb or implement anything Langford was doing.
Even with the new council in the COV and Saanich it will still be 9 to 12 months to obtain something as simple as a garden suite permit, which in my opinion should take 5 to 7 business days.
How this translates to real life, for example, the COV “tree preservation conservation” specialist will hold up MM permits months on end over whether too many branches will need to be cut out of a tree to hook up BC Hydro to the building, etc. Add a bunch of other departments holding things up months on end.
? Minimum standards?
Eby’s announced plans for housing seem mostly setting “targets” for the municipalities to meet. That’s not “minimum standards”. I’d expect the municipalities to ignore the targets, because they correctly want to follow the wishes of their voters. Province threatens to fine the cities won’t amount to much IMO, as that’s too politically risky. And won’t move the needle. So much of Eby’s plans will go nowhere, just pre-election blather.
The province have promised to build housing by themselves – and have ignored their previous “targets”. How about they meet their own targets first?
What does that have to do with supply and demand of rentals? Between craigslist, usedvictoria, and FB marketplace there are literally thousands of rental listings. No one is calling their buddy with two rental properties fixing pricing with him or her.
It is actually a really simple concept that I think people just don’t want to understand (it is so simple that I don’t think it is possible for someone not to actually understand it) More people want to live in Victoria than units available; therefore, prices go up even if we build some every year.
I’ll go back to Leo’s example again.
Yesterday I made 6 hot dogs for 6 people.
Today I made 8 hot dogs for 10 people.
I made more food so I don’t understand why people went hungry.
aka
Yesterday we had 6 rental units for 6 people wanting to live in Victoria. Rent was $1,000 per month.
We built 2 more rentals, now we have 8 rental units but 10 people want to live here. The max affordability of the 8th person is $1,200 per month.
I built more rentals but I don’t understand why rents went up.
Marko , check out craigslist along Reunion.
I’m not sure how this accords with your concerns re. Stu not being re-elected impacting permitting times in Langford?
Well Totoro, you are going against 250 years of economic theory. In an open market, all districts compete with each other. The district boundaries are artificial boundaries. The values in an area are set primarily by the distance they are from the Central Business District (CBD). That’s not to say that they are equal concentric circles radiating from the CBD as market values are influenced by other factors. One of many factors for example is the commuting time which depends on the road systems in-place or crime rates. And that doesn’t mean that houses nearest to the core are the more expensive either as these areas are generally occupied by lower income households that work in the service industries and tend to have higher crime neighborhood rates.
And that goes way back to the time of the building of the Pyramids when the workers lived around the Pyramids and the more wealthier lived a distance near enough to be within easy commute but far enough so that they did not have to deal with the problems associated with a transient workforce.
If you want to find out the typical value for your home, you would look at property values within a one or two kilometer radius of your home and that radius can cross district boundaries. People are very rational in their buying decisions. Some might pay a very small percentage more for a property on the Oak Bay side of Foul Bay, but they are not going to pay significantly more. And that’s more to do with the marketing of the property as an agent will promote the Oak Bay address. But an agent is limited in that regards. The difference in offers that a top 10 agent versus an average agent may get for a property is generally a very small percentage -if any. Again I say generally because real estate is affected by many factors. But real estate still follows economic principles. There are academics that have doctorates in real estate and spent their life times studying it. Countless text books have been written on the subject.
What Victoria and other cities are going through now, has happened in other cities and at other times. All of which has been dissected and written about by academics. Greater Victoria is not any different.
As people age, you want to be in a major city with hospitals and specialists. It can be a matter of life or death. Rural access to emergency health care sucks.
No one is collectively increasing rents. Supply and demand determine rents.
Trend since WWII across the globe has been opposite but I guess you never know.
I am with you, no hope in my opinion. As I’ve been saying for a while now politics might change, beuracracy won’t.
What are you talking about, zero logic?
First of all why would I make the current council even a small factor when advising on a purchase? According to your logic I should advise eveyone to sell in Victoria and buy in Langford asap as they just voted out a pro-development mayor and council and of course we can count on the people of Victoria and Langford voting in a similar pattern for the next 30 years.
Why would I care where a buyer buys? Same commission whether they buy Oak Bay, Victoria or Langford.
If you have an issue with sixplexes next to you sell and buy in Oak Bay and then Ebby can force only a triplex next to you.
People want change in Victoria and the voting reflects such. Deal with it.
The same happened in Langford just in a different direction.
The funny part in all of this is no change will actually happen. My prediction is MM comes back to the table and the council puts on a list of dumb restrictions (step code 5, affordability criteria, etc.) and very few are built as the economics simply don’t work.
No one has made a counter argument to my argument that it will be 5 years before we see someone walking into a missing middle unit.
Totoro If we can get a lot more townhomes built in the core I will be cheering it on I just believe a politician is just one spoke in the wheel so not holding out much hope
NATIONAL POST: ‘$1M tool sheds are the future’: Inside the thoughts of Canada’s overheated housing market
https://apple.news/AqQZh4fGPRuimOVtLtx7cig
I think it will in Victoria. The question for MMI is whether Eby’s plan negates the importance of this change for this particular issue.
It will imo, although how much more I’m not sure. We just have to look to what has happened in other jurisdictions post upzoning. In California land prices were skyrocketing and upzoning did not increase densification rapidly, nor is it projected to because of the costs of redevelopment vs. profit margins, but, long-term, the ability to convert a SFH to up to four units does contribute to increased land prices due to potential future development of more units per lot.
You can read about this here:
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/
The City of Victoria commissioned a study with the same findings for Victoria. Bottom line seems to be that there will not be rapid change, but long-term change will happen. It will likely be adopted first by homeowners for conversions for multi-gen and aging in place purposes and, later, by developers.
They haven’t in general – -although the same house in Fairfield may have similar levels of appreciation – I can’t tell at that level. Even different areas of Victoria have appreciated faster than others. Maybe Leo has stats, I looked into it a long time ago.
“It looks like virtually no change in Saanich: the outgoing group was 7-2 pro-housing; the incoming group is 7-2 pro-housing.”
Within those groups, there are quite varying degrees. Brice seems quite measured when approving projects and Plant tends to go with the political wind (which may explain why he did so well in the election). Two very pro density council members did not run again – Merseareu and Ned Taylor. They were swapped for Teal-Bondoroff who looks very pro environment above all and Mena Westhover, who seems a bit of an unknown (?). The new Mayor will probably move things faster but won’t be a big change from the last I think.
As a percentage of increase, Victoria and Oak Bay have generally kept up with each other. It’s just that Oak Bay started out at higher prices. That’s because no one district or city is a market by itself. What happens in one area has a direct effect on the adjoining areas. As people purchase where they see value. If Oak Bay becomes too expensive then they shift to Victoria or Saanich East raising the prices in those areas. Market Value is alternative value which means a buyer will not pay more for a property than an alternative property of equal utility. That’s why new homes, generally, sell for a higher price than a five year old home. Now, I said generally because there are always exception. In a declining market, you could find new homes selling for less than five year old homes as contractors are dumping inventory.
Currently, the single family average months of inventory for the preceding three months in Oak Bay is 7.8 while Victoria was at 2.8. That’s putting pressure on the Oak Bay market to moderate in price. The odds are that Oak Bay, being temporarily out of balance, will move back to a more of its long term premium position in pricing relative to the surrounding areas.
Most neighborhoods in Oak Bay will always retain a premium over most areas of Victoria but if that premium is too large then the market will correct itself. Just as no man is an island, no district is a market. It is a rare occurrence to find two adjoining districts with one decreasing in price while its neighbor is increases.
Now, I have heard on this blog that people from other areas are moving to Oak Bay because it is so much cheaper than where they are moving from. But that assumes that these people are stupid. I don’t care how rich you are – people don’t like to over pay. That’s not how they got rich in the first place.
They always get the USD price although the buyer may be paying CAD. If you are willing to pay market price, there’s a seller.
Change in local politics will not move the dial much I’m sure the missing middle will continue to miss and bewilder We will be going into a cycle of less construction
I hope someone has a magical supply of building materials to build all these housing units. Florida has to rebuild 2 or 3 Victoria’s after the recent devastation. I’m sure the lumber producers would rather get U.S. dollars for their products.
Dad: I am not sure that the missing middle will be a positive for the land values for SFH moving forward over the next few years. As the street converts to more sixplexes it is likely that the SFHs value decreases since most buyers of SFH will not want to be on a street that is becoming rental apartments. You are left with a limited selection of developers as potential buyers who will have an increasing selection of lots to choice from.
Given a choice would most people rather not buy a house sandwiched between a couple of sixplexes or on a street that looks like it has a decade of construction on it.
As it is Victoria’s prices have not kept up with Oak Bay over the last ten years.
As new construction slows and high density projects are put on hold, my opinion is that we will experience the pendulum of economic expansion swing as people chose to leave the bigger cities and move back to the rural areas of BC and Alberta for a better quality of life.
Which raises the debate about what is or what is not a better quality of life. People in Victoria have seen their net worth grow to incredible amounts but that has come at a cost of congestion and social problems. Is being a millionaire worth having to step over a homeless person sleeping in the doorway to your downtown condominium or having to spend more time in heavy traffic to get to your home in the Western Communities?
We have had decades of low interest rates and an unprecedent expansion of construction in the Western Communities as well as the densification of the downtown core which has attracted groups of investors that have been buying upwards of one-fourth of all new construction projects and collectively increasing rents to the point that the cities have become unaffordable for a single person to move to Victoria that is making under $75K a year. The 18 to 24 year old’s are not moving here as they have in the past. And that will become a problem in the future as they are the ones that work in the service sectors and should be the ones buying real estate in the next decade.
Real Estate follows boom/bust cycles as that is our free market system. We have had low interest rates too long and too much construction which has brought in workers from rural communities who needed a place to either rent or own. And that has been the source of higher prices, higher rents, more homeless people, and more social problems.
Perhaps with the higher interest rates, the pendulum may be about to swing back. Governments that are trying to re-vamp the natural tendency of the market cycle to correct may end up making the situation worse as the market goes from scarcity to a glut of housing.
James janion for sure and a few others downtown A great time to be in air b&b shtick Hotels this summer where well booked and the rates where the highest they have ever been
Why? If anything, missing middle is a positive for land values.
As for not buying a single family house, I doubt that it’ll make much difference to most people. Change will be exceedingly slow, just like it always is.
It’s been at least three years since I’ve heard anyone say they like Ben Isitt, and when they did, I made a mental note to ignore anything they had to say in perpetuity. Dubow was at least smart enough to read the room and not humiliate himself with another election. Neither of them will be missed.
Is there a list of Airbnb friendly rental
Buildings ? Looking to buy .
They were probably turned off by the toxic campaign in Victoria. The online bullying of certain candidates was ruthless. It was all pretty pathetic to watch people claw after a $50k a year job. The only positive is that clown Isitt has to find a new job.
I really would not personally want to take real estate recommendations from Marko.if I was looking for a long term home. As an investment it is dubious to be in the CofV all factors considered. Then again I am not trying to flog real estate in the city to buyers.
Yup people living in 15 year old cookie cutter SFHs subdivisions complaining about development. Obviously when their subdivision was put in no trees were touched.
Natural progression is buy into a community and than pull the ladder behind you as you move in so now one else can climb in.
I wouldn’t underestimate the impact of that simple pro-housing list of candidates. Many people don’t have time to sort through all the candidates – particularly in Victoria. I reposted it fairly widely, and I’m sure others did as well. It was probably used by people on both sides of the fence to choose/avoid candidates!
I see Langford is following the natural progression: people start out as INABYs (I Need A Back Yard), then they become NIMBYs.
If anything I am more likely to purchase in the COV now.
Interesting election. One take on this is that anyone considering buying a SFH to live long term in CofV would be wise to really reconsider that decision.
It looks like virtually no change in Saanich: the outgoing group was 7-2 pro-housing; the incoming group is 7-2 pro-housing.
Langford’s ostensible shift to a less pro-development mayor and council will be interesting to watch.
You also make me laugh but only for a couple reasons. Besides I want you to have something to do while being stuck on the colwood crawl ;).
That was easily the biggest shocker in CoV. I never would have predicted that.
Bears mentioning that Isitt is a apparently a supporter of Anjali Appadurai for the NDP leadership.
https://canadatoday.news/bc/bc-ndp-leadership-candidate-victoria-councilor-to-hold-event-at-esquimalt-27473/
Well – Stu out in Langford, Isett out in Victoria. That looks like development/densification will be shifting from Langford back to Downtown. This will be interesting.
If the politics change that is one thing but if they change the staff culture at Langford City Hall that is going to suck. It is the only munciaplity turning around permits in a reasonable amount of time.
I don’t know what HFL’s impact was, but I think we can take partial credit for Isitt going from biggest vote getter to out. Left nimbyism is no longer a viable position.
Crushing housing success in Victoria. Little change in Saanich (though Dean should accelerate housing action), and shocker in the westshore. That will take some time to digest. Don’t know if anyone had all three of those mayors being replaced on their bingo card. Hard to say what that means for housing there
Saanich Top 8 , according to saanich.ca:
Person % Votes
+PLANT, Colin 9.0% 16324
+BRICE, Susan 8.5% 15355
+DE VRIES, Zac 7.9% 14274
-BROWNOFF, Judy 6.5% 11845
?WESTHAVER, Mena 6.3% 11459
-CHAMBERS, Nathalie 5.9% 10633
+HARPER, Karen 5.8% 10436
+PHELPS BONDAROFF, Teale 5.1% 9218
Five folks marked with (+) are from Leo’s list, I suppose that’s good then.
Mayor – less than 0.6% difference!
Most liked comment on FB pertaining to Stew’s loss and referring to the new mayor.
“Hope this mayor of Langford will stop all the development around Langford.”
Same person in 5 years from now “rent prices are outrageous the government needs to do something immediately” 🙂
After 29 years in office it was time for change…Stew’s concession speech wasn’t the most grateful https://omny.fm/shows/cfax-1070/outgoing-langord-mayor-stew-young-concedes
Pretty decent council for Vic IMO. Basically the best of the Homes for Living candidates plus the best of the Better Victoria candidates. Gardiner is not my fave, but she is just one vote.
Congratulations for Alto for Victoria, Hope she is able to bring some change.
Wow, new Mayor for Langford. Wonder what Stew is thinking atm
This post made me laugh for so many different reasons.
We shall see how the democratic process plays out this evening.
Neighborhoods change. Individual homeowners don’t control what happens around them. The democratic process does. What you do control is your ability to sell, move, and rebuy in a neighbourhood more to your liking if yours changes in ways you don’t want to live with. This is a much better position to be in that trying to afford a first home.
I am a numbers guy. I called the 100bps hike and the Canadian dollar being a factor for rate hikes before Tiff put out the press release. I called Victoria people being slow the correction back in April while a bunch of clowns were going on and on about immigration and how sfh in the core will never be under $1M. I also LMAO when all these amatures developers, I mean single family home builders in town took steve saretsky’s debt jubilee bs as gospal.
Go fact check those and ya some of the stuff on this forum makes me LMAO. And yes I also got some things wrong too and I LMAO at that too.
And why you getting offended when I am talking about barrister’s post. Lmao were you one of the ones calling him out at the time?
Less than 10 minutes to vote in Saanich.
Any thoughts on how this election is going?
Line-up around Oaklands Elementary school all day today in Victoria. Could we have a record turnout for a municipal election?
Thanks for the discussion. And enjoy the weekend!
Patrick: At least you are amusing. But I really suspect that you have no idea how the city works. But you are simply being argumentative which even you must find tiresome.
If you want to live in a high-rise, that’s fine, I approve.
If you want to build a high-rise next door to me, then I object.
People choose where they live based on neighbourhood characteristics with the expectation they will not change dramatically.
Missing-middle proponents claim neighbourhoods will not change dramatically, but people are right to be sceptical. What neighbourhood doesn’t have a “duplex” that is really a 4-plex? The old bait-and-switch game is strong in local politics.
If most people wanted to live in 6 storey condos, there wouldn’t be an issue, but they don’t.
Strange you would say that, since the “dense” people are the ones proposing that land owners have more control over what gets built on their property. No one’s proposing that you be forced to build a triplex on your lot. You just want to tell everyone else in your neighbourhood what they can and can’t do.
Of course the Big5 bank insiders might think differently.
But sorry, I don’t believe your contacts are in fact insiders at the Big5.
Because you made a specific point of saying that BayStreet refers to lots of people like lawyers and stock analysts etc. that are not insiders or even working at the Big5. https://househuntvictoria.ca/2022/05/10/months-of-inventory-or-sales-to-list-which-is-better/#comment-88337
Patrick, has it occurred to you that what the Big Five publically state is not exactly what their insiders believe?
TD fixed five year is about 5.6 so we will see what it is at in Jan. Once again, I am not predicting myself but was just passing on what some knowledgeable people were suggesting. But their guess is not necessarily any better than yours.
I do not think that 6% interest rates foretell any sort of disaster in the real estate market. There will be readjustments of expectations all down the line. Far too early to tell the extent of these impacts.
What I do suggest is that people pay close attention to the Canadian dollar.
Beautiful weather this weekend. Get out and enjoy it with friends and family.
Nice try VicRE.
Barrister’s Bay streeters were calling for 6-8% rates, by Jan 2023. Not 5% as you stated. I’m disappointed. I thought you were a numbers guy. Some advice: You should spend more time fact checking your own posts , and less time “LMAO”
And btw, the objection I had to that at the time was to point out that the big 5 banks on Bay Street were not calling for rates that high. You can see that in the thread here https://househuntvictoria.ca/2022/05/10/months-of-inventory-or-sales-to-list-which-is-better/#comment-88306
Barrister, remember when people on here were making fun of you about your bay street contacts and how no way mortgages would be 5%. Lmao looks like 5% will be a deal come November.
That won’t satisfy the “dense” people. They want to choose how other people live. 🙂
I’m not a big Facebook fan but check it a couple times a day. I’ve never seen the promotions for buying real estate mentioned below. I don’t even know how that would work. I hope 99% of people would recognize the scam and ignore it.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-real-estate-investing-social-media/
The article is BS. The writer is comparing median ownership costs as reported by the census, with median rents also reported by the census. If you think for a minute, you will understand that almost all homeowners are paying costs lower, and in many cases much lower, than the costs of buying today.
Yeah that’s crazy. Mortgage fraud can stay hidden if the market is going up, or if the downturn is short (like in 2008/09). If prices keep declining and stay down for a while then a lot of the results of that fraud (i.e. owners that cannot actually afford their places) will bubble to the surface. I have absolutely no idea if that’s a meaningful part of the market or not though.
Actually the province controls all land use. It was only delegated to local governments. Seems pretty obvious that the provinces are unhappy with how the local governments have handled that delegation and are about to set some minimum standards.
Just an observation is that you “lol’ing” at people with enough money to invest in a property that doesn’t necessarily work out for them is about as ignorant and cruel as people “lol’ing” at you having to pay your rent on or before the 1st of every month.
That’s completely backwards. People who come to a place should be loyal to the place they arrived at, not to people from elsewhere. What you are saying is you can move to the US and claim that Americans who want to lower immigration should shut up and let in more people like you. That is self-centered betrayal and downright invasory. Any decent person would put America and Americans first in that scenario. You respect where you go. That’s the only decent thing to do. You may not always agree with it, but you respect it.
And yeah I did say people are obviously free to move about but again the municipalities control zoning and should. Again, your boundaries are poor.
Move government jobs to the West Shore were a lot of the employees already live. Save people a commute. Besides it will leave more room for druggies and real estate agents in the core.
Watched the marketplace episode. Not surprisingly, lots of fraud going on. Not an issue when prices are going up and rates are going down. Might be a bigger issue now. Also they called 25 random mortgage brokers across the country and 1 in 5 basically said they could get the clients fraudulent documents to qualify for more. Maybe a small sample size but I’m sure it would have been higher if it wasn’t over the phone and the first time talking to someone.
If you think it’s gonna be fixed I doubt there is appetite to do so. I used to work at a big 5 and there was rumors back then about connecting to the CRA system to confirm income (like we do with taxes) but it still hasn’t happened and likely isn’t any closer. Also on the episode one of the mortgage specialist willing to get forged documents works at Scotiabank. It’s not just the small guys doing it.
In the old days, the housing shortage was solved by suburban sprawl? Why isn’t there more of a push to do that? Focus on building rapid transit to city core etc.
The missing middle idea seems slower and more costly than building new homes. Why do people need to be near the core of the city?
From: https://financialpost.com/real-estate/condo-pre-construction-market-softens
And then went the assignment sales and speculators…..lol
Tonight on CBC Marketplace… “Real estate agents caught on hidden camera facilitating mortgage fraud for a fee” Mortgage brokers and bank employees also involved… https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-mortgage-fraud-1.6614132
I’m pretty sure that’s over half… but we’re getting down to minute details here.
In Vancouver, it’s now cheaper to own than to rent
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/article-in-vancouver-its-now-cheaper-to-own-than-to-rent/
https://docdro.id/YIEXD10
OK, but I also get View Royal, Highlands, North Saanich, Sooke, and the Juan de Fuca EA.
Sure, Saanich/Victoria/Oak Bay/Esquimalt can densify, you can have Sidney/Langford/Colwood/Metchosin.
How about half of Greater Victoria neighbourhoods stick with SF zoning and the other half densifies to their heart’s content, and everyone chooses where they wanna live based on personal preference and what they can afford.
Completely agree. Missing middle took up a lot of the oxygen in the housing debate and I think it’s critical that we legalize missing middle housing, but it’s a long term solution. In the short term other reforms will be more impactful (parking reform, delegating OCP compliant approvals, etc)
Here’s a good article discussing that in Minneapolis where they eliminated single family zoning (in a pretty restrictive way though) https://reason.com/2022/05/11/eliminating-single-family-zoning-isnt-the-reason-minneapolis-is-a-yimby-success-story/
Totally agree. There is going to be absolutely intense pressure to open up land up the malahat for sprawl. My preference is to build enough homes for people within the urban containment boundary. European model not Alberta model
Yes I agree with all this. My point was only referring to median age in Victoria, which isn’t high and hasn’t been rising much. (compared to Canada and other countries). That was a surprise to me when I looked at the data, since I heard lots of people saying that this city demographics are heavily skewed to old people. Turns out there’s lots of young people here too.
Question for Marko (or other agents/mortgage brokers) – Provincially regulated credit unions are not required to use the “stress test” when approving mortgage applicants. This means buyers can qualify at the negotiated rate and not the negotiated rate +2%. Have you had many clients go to credit unions for their mortgage to take advantage of this lower income requirement?
Unfortunately, this is nothing more than desperate government spin as they try to make it look like they’re accomplishing something on the healthcare front. BC has 19 family practice training program sites throughout the province that graduate 174 family medicine residents each year, so out of those only 54 have signed on to work within this model. So all those tax dollars spent and only 31% are signing up for this model, which doesn’t even cover the retirements in the same year. The government is in trouble once their likeable leader steps down and all their shortcomings are no longer masked by a cool-dad premier.
Maybe they frequent this forum and are waiting for you to throw some above ask bids at them?
Bit random. Saw this as a positive on the doctor situation. Which has been a hot topic here in the past. Too bad they don’t say where they will be setting up shop!
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022HLTH0192-001500
People in B.C. will benefit from better access to care with 54 new doctors having signed contracts as of Oct. 1, 2022, to provide full-service primary care in communities throughout the province.
In June 2022, the Ministry of Health offered new incentives to recent family medicine graduates through a new-to-practice family physician contract program. New family physicians who sign the contract will earn $295,457 for the first year, plus a $25,000 signing bonus, medical training debt forgiveness of up to $50,000 for the first year and up to $20,000 for years two to five. In addition, the doctor will receive a $75,000 payment that will be used as a contribution toward overhead costs for their host clinic.
Along with the 54 contracts signed, more than 60 family physicians are in discussions about suitable clinic placements and the terms of the contract. Since June 2022, 140 new family physicians have expressed interest in the incentives.
The incentives are part of B.C.’s Health Human Resources Strategy to improve and increase access to health care for people. Other actions to help patients get continued access to primary care services include $118 million in stabilization funding to support family doctors in the province.
My understanding is that allowing upzoning that overrides restrictive covenants (e.g. Broadmead) hasn’t been suggested or even hinted at by Eby, including in his recent housing plan. I wouldn’t expect to see it, and I’d expect there would be “hell-to-pay” if they tried that.
Numbers are inaccurate, sure, I don’t know how it’s demeaning when they literally can’t help it. Demeaning is having no one to help them with the problem.
100% of infants go through this phase. 5-17% of older individuals experience fecal incontinence – a significant percentage of which are due to complications from childbirth. So, yes, this is an inaccurate and demeaning statement when directed at the older population.
Is it disrespectful to say that babies wear diapers and poop in them? Or just reality?
My understanding is that the province does have the power to do this but it would require legislative amendments – as it would to remove the age and rental restrictions on condos. I don’t think any information on this has been released.
hmm, an updated concept for Survivor: season 45…I like it!
Would Eby’s province-wide blanket upzoning supersede a neighbourhood’s restrictive covenant?
I’m specifically thinking about Broadmead’s negative provision restricting the use of each lot to SF.
https://broadmead.ca/broadmead.ca/uploads/2021/04/14bBugleFall.pdf
Sorry, thought Leo meant that it would add more affordability than having it mandated by the province.
I feel like homelessness in the city could actually be an easily solvable problem, just move them all to the Uplands, and then they’ll pay to get rid of them.
Ouch!!
On the municipality level you could do a better job for sure including affordability, if common sense prevailed. In some communities a triplex just might not be economically feasibility, for example. In Oak Bay maybe they would prefer legalizing duplexes and garden suites versus having triplexes shoved down on them by Ebby.
***this is assuming munciaplities operated rationally in trying to address the housing demands. In the end the province might just have to step in.
How would adding a municipal level lead to more affordability?
Don’t get me started on the Royal Bay nimbyism 🙂 Almost as bad as the people in my three year old condo building complaining about future development (that we were told about when we bought the pre-sales).
I seriously question how some people came to a position in life where they can afford a unit in my building. They have arguments like think of all the “construction noise and dust”…..yes when the 3 year old building we live in was built a few helicopters just dropped it in. There was no inconvenience to anyone.
Btw, I have a client protesting a height in Royal Bay too but when GableCraft sold the pre-sale SFH to them it wasn’t marketed as having a view, the contract had a clause about no views being guaranteed and I clearly remember telling the client “this isn’t a view purchase, if you get some oceans views consider it a lucky bonus.” Ended up they got a really nice view across Metchosin Rd and now they are pissed it might be blocked and all development should be stopped.
I think we want one imposed by the Province or you are going to have excessive delays at the municipal level. It is really not fair to put Council in this position imo. And my guess is that the provincial plan will not eliminate the ability of municipalities to tailor some of the provisions to local concerns provided the targets are met.
As for missing middle it’s a bit of a moot question if Eby keeps his promise. The question is only do we want a missing middle plan built through community consultation which will yield more and cheaper units while including affordability and tree preserving provisions, or do we want one imposed by the province with none of those?
This is the 5-plex I am talking about 1680 Ryan St
https://maps.app.goo.gl/YuBRjwd91EYts3Wc7
My parent’s live a few houses away and I’ve literally never seen anyone coming or going, but based on an MLS sale earlier this year and the photos a family with children lived in one of the 5 units.
My point is the 5-plex provided housing for young families in a residential neighborhood short walk to an elementary school and it did not destroy the neighborhood in any shape way or form.
I guess I see the comments differently. The people opposing are not looking at the next five years, but at what their neighborhood will look like for their lifetime and reacting to that. I expect my neighbourhood to densify, and don’t see a reason to oppose this given the housing factors at play here, but a lot of people hate change.
At the public hearing it was almost 100% predictable what position someone would have based on age. Homeownership is part of it but many 30s/40s owners also spoke in favour.
It is funny though, a colleague just bought in Royal bay and was telling me how he was at city hall protesting the height of the Royal beach development. Ownership is a powerful force towards nimbyism
It’s funny to hear people assume that because a person has multiple properties they couldn’t possibly also have a disciplined financial plan and that the only way to acquire multiple properties is to do so by blindly throwing money into it. It’s actually quite the opposite, but if that makes you feel better, just go with that.
I agree with the homeowners part. I’ve been talking to people on my parents street and most are against MM with the exception of a few younger home owner families, but when I’ve asked the non-supporters if they’ve ever had any issues with a 5-plex we have in the neighborhood 90% don’t even know there is a 5-plex in close proximity to them.
What I’ve seen on the livestreams is lot of super frustrated and angry older people. Its like someone is tabling their pension being reduced next week by 30%.
Maybe the problem is people just see townhomes being framed and they don’t realize it took the developer 3 years just to get the the framing staging.
902 foul bay will be what like 7 or 8 years from the first developer buying the property to someone moving in?
There is a big age range as far as I can tell based on my FB groups, but skews older because what non-supporters tend to be is homeowners.
As I’ve noted in the last few months on HHV I strongly support unions getting larger wage increases. Guess what happens if everyone gets large pay increases and we don’t solve housing supply, prices and rents go up.
We need to pay everyone better but we also need housing supply desperately imo.
I don’t think we will get the housing supply we need and I am not going to lose sleep over it. Just means higher rents on my rental properties long term.
I see no reason why zoning here won’t follow the California path. We have most of the same factors at play. This podcast follows the story of a single family home over decades: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-rise-of-the-single-family-home/id1200361736?i=1000582267613
The bottom line is that houses will eventually be redeveloped by owners and developers as densification increases. Right now redevelopment is not that profitable but, longer term, it will be.
As I’ve said before, if you have children and want them to be able to stay in Victoria you should plan for this now and not expect them to do it on their own except in rare circumstances. My kids’ friends are already moving away because housing is too expensive here.
My argument is a lot of MM non-supporters are 60 yrs old or older. By the time MM envolves and some of their concerns come to fruition like parking and “character” of neighborhoods changes statistically speaking most of them with be dead. Sorry if this offends anyone but doubt the average life expectancy will move to 90 yrs old anytime soon. Why get so upset over it? Just go enjoy a walk along Dallas Rd.
My point is if MM is approved you won’t be seeing 5 on your block in the next 5 years.
I agree we have to plan for 30+ yrs out. If a 6 unit multiplex is finished in 5 years guess what it is in 25 years? Dated inventory that is less desirable and more affordable than brand new inventory.
The older townhomes on Shelbourne built in the 1990s sell for approximately 200 to 300k less than the newer townhomes on Shelbourne, but in 1990s they were brand new and sold for an equivalent of an Oakland’s home. We should plan long term.
I am a strong supporter of MM but I don’t have any faith that it will actual move the needle, but might as well try something versus nothing.
More reasonable for you and your personal interests as you live in the COV. Not sure someone in South Oak Bay would agree with the current Oak Bay status quo versus a strata triplex being built next to them under Ebby’s plan.
I am giving you concrete arguments here. It will be 5 years before someone has the keys to a MM product. If you think otherwise please give me a breakdown of your timelines.
I am in support of MMI but do people really not plan housing for this time period? This statement holds zero weight for me as my planning window is in excess of 30 years and is, in fact, multi-generational, and if I was concerned about densification I would already be planning around this.
Aging in place is also something you can plan for. While I agree we need way more affordable housing, everyone should think about this in advance imo if they want to avoid stress for their loved ones. Our plan includes a live-in caregiver if needed and a significant fund for paid medical services annually.
Marko: The obvious solution is to pay doctors and nurses more. As you pointed out Alberta pays more and ultimately we are also competing with the US. More high density has made neither Vancouver or Toronto affordable for anyone.
If you really want to reduce the number of older people in Victoria build a great medical care hospital and network somewhere like Qualidux beach as an alternative.
Since according to you your missing middle plan will not produce much in the way of housing for the next decade then it wont do anything much for the doctor issue.
Sadly I think you are just tossing anything out to make your argument rather than a reasoned approach. Ebby seems to have come up with a much more reasoned and acceptable approach and that may be the death of the MM.
Take with requisite grain of salt:
CMHC sees home prices falling 15% from peak as economic outlook darkens
https://financialpost.com/real-estate/mortgages/cmhc-sees-home-prices-falling-15-from-peak-levels-as-economic-forecast-downgraded
That was your point though, you said that anyone who hasn’t been here 2 decades shouldn’t get a say, and you never said it was a free country, that was Peter.
What bothers me is people who think they should close the gates when the only reason their here is that people didn’t close the gates on them or their family. It’s such a ridiculous “I’ve got mine” sentiment, and it’s completely bullshit. The hilarious part is seeing it from people who haven’t even been here that long. People are advocating for housing instead of homelessness. As someone who has been here over 2 decades my vote would be kick people like you off the island.
Two recent listings in the Henderson area are $1,000,000 over assessment. 3044 Oakdowne and 3315 University Woods, both original, renovated homes. I guess they didn’t get the price collapse memo.
More older people are moving to the Island, undoubtedly. However, more older people are also dying at a higher rate. When someone in their 60’s moves in, they’ll probably be checking out in 10-20 years, its called life expectancy. When younger people move in, they require housing for 50-60 years plus start a family that eventually creates more demand. Older people have a higher turnover rate and leave their kids back home.
Maybe creating a program that offers seniors a guaranteed personal care home room when they require one if they volunteer at a personal care home while they’re able. Seems like a fair and equitable solution. Unfortunately, this makes too much sense to be feasible.
The absolute number of older people is increasing even if the median isn’t changing and it doesn’t appear that the health care system can handle the current absolute number let alone the one in 10 years.
If the city is completely unaffordable in terms of housing not sure that encourages young doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to start their careers here. I remember when I graduated in 2007 approx. 10% of my classmates went to Alberta even thought they were from BC. It was $7/hr more for respiratory therapist and housing was cheaper.
When my parents came to Victoria as immigrants in the mid 1990s they were in their late 30s. My father worked in construction as a stone mason and my mom as a housekeeper at Vic General until they got privatized by the Campbell government. Now, immigrants come to Victoria in their late 30s and they work IT jobs or some other paper pushing position. The median age doesn’t change, but I would be it is a lot more difficult to find a quality tradesperson or housekeeper these days. I doubt people are lining up at Jubilee and Vic General for housekeeping positions.
No, not a “reality”. The idea that Victoria population is old and rapidly aging is an urban myth. Victoria median age is 42.8 (2021 census), essentially unchanged from 2016 (42.7), and similar to BC (42.3) and Canada overall (41.1). https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm. And https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&GENDERlist=1&STATISTIClist=1&HEADERlist=0&DGUIDlist=2021A00055917034&SearchText=victoria
Compare that to other countries, e.g. Germany 47.8, Croatia 43.9, and provinces like Newfoundland 47, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age
I am guessing less than 1% of missing middle supporters have a way of making any sort of money of it. I honestly think I would be better off financially long term without missing middle as I already have a principal residence and multiple rental properties. If there isn’t more supply added both prices and rents will only go up to a larger extent. They will go up with missing middle as well, just to a lower degree, imo.
For the 100th time, why are all the non-supporters so passionate about this. It will be at least 5 years before someone moves into a multi-plex. Odds are it will be at least 7 to 10 years before someone moves into a multi-plex on your block and it will be 20 to 30 years before there are multiple multi-plexes on your street creating a small parking problem (assuming self-driving cars aren’t a thing by then).
Let’s use some common sense here. CURRENTLY, it takes 9 months to get a building permit to build a SFH completely within the bylaws so realistically missing middle timelines ASSUMING it passes
This is ASSUMING these are economically viable. If interest rates go up another 1 or 2% that we delay things another 2 yrs.
Add in the step code they will probably apply to missing middle projects will probably add a few more years of lack of economic viability.
The world isn’t ending. The landscape of your street might change a bit, over decades.
I don’t know…it is kind of reality. As you age you need more medical support and care in general where do we house these folks providing such.
Activity on all three fronts last 24 hrs
50 new listings
25 sales (decent)
40 price drops (lots)
This is a very disrespectful comment towards older people. I hate the increasing inequality in Victoria too…but there are better ways of getting your point across than trying to humiliate people.
Leo very cool chart and on topic too not bad . Would guess a lot of mortgage free boomers bringing up the average
Second highest level of mortgage free households. Not sure if that is just due to our demographics though
Your different way of knowing is always amusing. Not sure where you ever got the thing where I was a FTHB (actually have discussed my properties here before). I guess just because I haven’t bought in Victoria? The thing about a disciplined financial plan, a person ends up with flexibility to choose many things such as retirement dates or to afford private school for their children if so desired. I guess if a person blindly throws all financial capacity into a single asset class (including any previous gains) it just might be difficult to understand. Anyways, it seems like you’re getting on your troll roll again. So, enjoy, I am sure it will be funny/sad as always.
beepbeepbeep
What is Oak Bay Alex?
Poor show, clueless and sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong is actually totally on brand for James. Oh, and absolutely don’t forget dead wrong. As someone reminded me a couple posts back “this is all James has left, he’s been kicked off every other housing website”
No matter what I’m sure you think you know, as a FTHB in Victoria was school catchment seriously on your list of criteria? If you can actually afford private school (doubtful with Freedom45 and all) coupled with your additional list of “housing demands” I’m anticipating seeing your posts for the next 20 years on HHV about how you “couldn’t get into the market”.
Market2022, so to be very clear are you saying you have a problem with sub-20yr Victorians advocating for missing middle but you aren’t bothered if someone here longer does? Your arguments don’t pass the smell test.
Has it occurred to you that some of us advocate for housing because we’d like young families to have a chance to own a home, and not because we’re trying to make money off of it? I’ve got a place to live, so why should I be against making it easier for other people to have the same? I’ll confess to some degree of self-interest, in that I’d like to have prosperous younger people around to work as medical professionals and grocery store clerks, and to staff whatever nursing home I end up in twenty years from now.
And who gets to define what a “real understanding” or “real connection” is? You? And if you agree that everyone has the right to move here, why even bring it up? Do you just enjoy whining that all of these new people with no “real connection” annoy you because somebody might build some townhomes in your neighbourhood? Would you prefer that we end up with 85% of the population wallowing in their own excrement, waiting for someone who can’t afford to rent an apartment to come and change their diaper? Because unless we deal with this problem, the only people moving here will be non-working, wealthy diaper poopers. Think about that, because a lot of them eat foie gras.
James, no one has more of a right to any city. That’s not the point. As I said it’s a free country and you can move wherever you want (or can). What bothers me is when people with no real history to the place, no real understanding or connection to it, advocate for ways to make money off it. That’s what’s wrong. Not that older timers are necessarily any better!
How peculiar. You don’t know the first thing about my background. I wouldn’t expect you to based on a blog statement. But really, James, assuming so is a poor show. You don’t have a clue. Nor is it any of your business. I will say this–your assumptions are dead wrong.
Again, if you are so concerned about First Nations interests, why don’t you consult with people of the Tsawout, Esquimalt, Tsartlip and others about overdevelopment on the southern Island.
Trump 2024
Looks like Vancouver might take the lead on the “missing middle” type of housing.
For example, here’s an article on a Seattle site, talking about the upcoming Vancouver election, and how Vancouver is on the brink of becoming a global leader in upzoning.
https://www.sightline.org/2022/10/11/the-ambitious-housing-plans-at-the-center-of-vancouver-bcs-october-election/
“ Following THE AMBITIOUS HOUSING PLANS AT THE CENTER OF VANCOUVER, BC’S, OCTOBER ELECTION
No longer a political third rail, parties are vying for votes with big promises to build abundant homes in one the world’s priciest cities. They could set a gold standard for North America . public sentiment, Vancouver’s politicians are suddenly thinking really big on housing.”
Hi Totoro,
Thanks! That’s very helpful. So far I’ve tried to avoid coming to conclusions (apart from recognizing self-evident contradictions, which doesn’t take much knowledge to do), and I’ve been looking for resources to properly learn. So thank you very much for giving a thread to follow.
Back to housing..
And thanks to Leo and HfL for the hard work assessing council candidates! We’ll find out the outcome soon..
After a few slow days this week it was nice to a bit of a listings bump today. With the nutters on the left and right battling over public schools (zealots trying to bring their politics to other people’s children from all sides), I think I can stop considering catchment as a part of a house location because private school is looking like a better and better option. So, what are the best candidate options for school vouchers or increased tax deductions for private school?….
Sign of the times….
This was used to help sell BMO HELOCS.
“ Apply once. Borrow some. Pay back some. Borrow again. Pay down your mortgage. Borrow even more.”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-mortgage-heloc-loan-changes-interest-rates/
As a centrist, I’m not really sure. It might just be hostility.
Unfortunately not. I went to school in the era when this was foisted upon children, oddly enough, by the boomer generation. The good news is that kids are smarter than people think and are aware of the concept of bullshit.
lol, I will do the same.
Haha yes my mistake for opening the political can of worms. Please keep discussion housing related and I will publish a new post immediately after the election to get back to topic
Remember when we used to discuss houses and housing on this housing site? Would love to go back to those times. Perhaps there could be a separate forum for off-topic debates? The vitriol that rises from off-topic debates detracts from the purpose of this site, no?
Very fair. I’m not good at being succinct most times. It actually frustrates me on occasion, and I treasure people with that brevity skill in writing. Ha, I tend to skip over lengthy posts, ironically.
It is plant food. Carbon emissions are vital to life on earth, and the earth’s geologic and biologic processes create vastly more carbon emissions per annum than humanity does or probably ever will. The issue is the small disequilibrium that the anthropogenic factor is understood to produce, which is a distinction a lot of people miss. It does highlight the fragile balance.
I’ll shut up about this now, as I know this is a housing blog.. 🙂
I’ve never understood people that can only get through life by sheltering in their echo chambers to avoid their insecurities and self-doubt.
I think the participation ribbons were the problem. I’m a millennial and recall how many were given out in school and there were lots more than gold silver and bronze that’s for sure. I mean, a red 9th place ribbon is cool if it’s your favourite colour, but hasn’t helped a lot of my coddled peers later in life.
James, you’re just being silly now. As you’ve told us, you have multiple PC’s, and some of them see all of the messages.
It’s funny how much more pleasant the comment section here having removed all the comments from only 2 specific posters. If only I could figure out how to remove the replies to these posters as well.
Where does this all this liberal hostility come from? Were you denied of participation ribbons as a child?
You could read this for an overview of what aboriginal title is: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do
And then this for the backstory on reconciliation: https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/aboriginal-heritage/royal-commission-aboriginal-peoples/Pages/final-report.aspx
As with any social movement there is going to be confusion and some people will take steps based on feelings rather than facts – and overcorrection happens. I personally dislike ideology without understanding, so I understand your reaction. However, you should read through everything and make sure you understand all the facts before developing your final position – especially in a University workplace.
My position is that FNs were treated terribly by government and there is a legal case for compensation for things like residential schooling and use of title lands. I’m not a fan of listening to the unceded territory sloganism and the heavy focus on this issue in many humanities departments – and the CBC for that matter.
For example, I have a friend whose daughter is studying child and youth care at UVic. Despite the fact that 95% of the students will not go on to work with Indigenous children, and there are many who will work with children with disabilities or from other cultures, each course they are given has a significant indigenous component and there are whole courses on the indigenous perspective – taught by non-indigenous instructors and clearly developed by non-indigenous people. This seems a bit unbalanced and, having viewed the materials myself, not that effective.
I feel like a lot of energy and money is going into using the right words, and not enough into specific, logical steps based on legally set parameters leading to meaningful change and improvement for affected individuals. Reconciliation to me means that the facts need to come out as they are through the public education system, and government needs to work to improve outcomes for indigenous people and enforce non-discrimination measures. And if you want awareness in the University setting have indigenous perspective courses taught by people who have grown up on Reserve.
So did I, but I found it a bit long-winded. My contribution on the other hand was concise and to the point. It also rings true in an era of freedom convoys, q-anon, Trump supporters, flat earthers, antivaxxers, red-pillers, and other associated dickwads.
Now piss off and condescend to someone else.
Call it a decent start if you want, but car companies are building electric vehicles to save the automobile industry, not the climate.
It wasn’t a waste of time. I found it thoughtful and well presented. Especially in contrast to your “This era is so fuckin’ dumb” contribution..
My comment was in response to the implication that carbon emissions might actually be good because it’s “plant food.” I’m sorry that caused you to waste time writing a dissertation.
Local Fool, yup!
Hey Totoro,
Very informative, thanks! If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the question “what do we do from here?” is not merely an ethical one, is that right? If so, sure, no disagreement there. I guess I have in mind the way this discourse impacts my life, in the Faculty of Science, where public discussion is, to be blunt, dumber and less meaningful. Platitudinous recitations and acknowledgement (which presumes a first violation of land rights by Western colonizers, transfixed in time, along with communicating the notion that basically no one living here now belongs here, something that inspires division without reconciliation or just treatment), ideological conceptions of how science perpetuates systems of oppression requiring a decolonized curriculum, etc, and potential scorn if you suggest otherwise. It would be much more interesting if the discussion instead involved concrete legal questions like what you point out. And, actually since you seem to know a bit about these things, do you have a (non-activist, non-ideological) resource to start learning about it?
One more quick comment and then back on topic. The resistance you’re seeing to school curricula here, and in the States, is a completely predictable consequence of using public education as a bully pulpit to transmit various moral and ideological claims (as opposed to empirical, demonstrated facts) that are multiple standard deviations away from the mean beliefs in society. Of course you’re going to get pushback, that can’t simply be attributed to “crazy people you disagree with anyway being crazy” or bigotry. For example, in the States, Virginia was ground zero for a lot of this pushback, which largely came from left-leaning second-generation immigrant families in well-to-do liberal enclaves. Yes, it’s become a political football since, but there is a genuine issue there. In San Francisco there has been a lot of pushback lately, largely from middle-class Asian American families.
To me the basic problem is a breakdown in pluralism, an inability to respect the beliefs of people that don’t agree with you, and difficulty distinguishing between moral claim and fact. Educators, like me!, are granted academic freedom and a special role in society under the public trust that we use that freedom to neutrally educate students without using our privileged position to push our own beliefs. An evangelical Christian teacher who actively proselytizes students is just as convinced in the goodness and rightness of what they’re doing, but when the shoe is on the other foot it is easy to see why that’s a problem. Ok, sorry, back on topic!
Offtopic for here and I don’t want to start a SOGI discussion, but VIVA candidates came up at a meet & greet with David Eby that I attended a while back. Eby’s response was that while it was concerning to see the organized effort, unlike the US where school boards actually have curriculum control, in BC it’s provincially set so they have zero power to influence what is taught.
Whether to the right or left, the problem continues to be there is an inescapable reality.
Emissions aside, oil and gas are unfortunately incredible sources of energy. Each one of us uses oil or its derivatives in some form every day. Lowering emissions in the absence of other viable alternatives is not realistic and renewable doesn’t even come remotely close to fulfilling our species’ growing needs for energy. A lot of people here argue for electrification, but globally that won’t make much difference, when you realize how almost all electricity is generated in the first place. Hint: It’s coal, oil and gas.
This is why despite all the efforts being made, global emissions are still climbing at a prodigious rate and will continue. Double, triple, octuple the carbon tax – make gas $15.00 a liter if you like – and you’ll get the same result. The environmental consequences may be serious, but we’re not good collectively at being proactive. We are much better at being reactive. We’re also prone to the “no one raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood” mentality. This is far from an excuse for inaction, but the probable reality is there is going to be way, way more CO2 in the air in 50 years than there is now.
I don’t think it’s useful to constantly refer to everything as “unprecedented” and a “crisis” and tell everyone that the planet will die soon (it won’t, and neither will we), because that numbs people and creates despondency, hopelessness and apathy which is the opposite of what we need.
We need to displace emissions-based energy production, rather than just repressing it and using inferior substitutes that have far, far less energy density. We need large scale innovation in that production and massive paradigm shifts in our transportation and agricultural infrastructure. Right now, fission is probably the best bet for things like manufacturing and civil infrastructure, but that’s politically tough to sell. Fusion would be a true game changer, but that struggles to come to fruition. Electric vehicles are a marginally decent start and a better alternative to ICE in many cases, but the market is still very tiny and they are not particularly environmentally friendly either.
Unless you want to go back to the 1860’s standard of living (and that would have to be globally) or there is a precipitous population decline, we won’t be able to tax our way out of the problem unless there is something equal or better to steer humanity to. Right now, there isn’t aside from nuclear. Science and innovation truly is, as Carl Sagan said, our candle in the dark.
This issue boils down to a legal one imo.
In 1871 when BC joined Canada BC didn’t recognize aboriginal title. However, the laws of England did require the negotiation of treaties upon occupation, and treaties were negotiated in much of Canada, but only parts of BC, for various reasons.
It turned out that BC was wrong in its 1871 position legally and Aboriginal title was not extinguished without a treaty (see Calder 1973, Degamuukw 1997, and Tsilquot’in 2014 SCC decisions).
This means that BC was always required to negotiate land claims and reach treaties or incremental agreements with First Nations.
So, separate and apart from the issues of the treatment of Indigenous people, fairness in negotiating treaties, and government-inflicted trauma, BC and Canada have a legal obligation to settle lands not subject to treaty but subject to Aboriginal title under the Western legal system. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada so it is, in my opinion, quite different than just an ethical question as you seem to indicate.
Ah yes, the weird redneck-hippy union that has formed on the fringe right. This era is so fuckin’ dumb.
Hey Caveat:
Yeah, that’s pretty bad! My comment was limited to the platform..
Kristan here are the responses of two VIVA SD61 candidates to “My 3 capital project priorities are….?”
“Sorry this question is not clear to me”
“Science does not support the efficacy of lowering carbon dioxide emissions. It is plant food and vital to all life forms.I would not waste tax payer dollars on lowering emissions.”
Platform aside, answers like that to a simple clear question don’t exactly scream “quality candidate”. Admittedly there are answers from “progressive” candidates that are just as bad or worse. But there are also mainstream candidates that seem to have a bit of a clue.
Every parent I have talked to is frustrated with the current school system and the parents views align in so many words with VIVA. They want the school system to stay in their lane and to educate. Let parents do the parenting.
Foreigner perspective here: the discourse surrounding Indigenous peoples here is, to be honest, completely baffling. I’m not sure if James meant precisely what he said, that land rights here were only violated for the first time when Westerners arrived, but the whole discourse surrounding these matters implicitly assumes it. But, unless the locals here were completely unlike all other people groups on the planet, then the 1800s was not the first time land rights were violated here. The Indigenous populations here circa hundreds of years ago were just the last ones standing. I mean, we already know that the coastal Salish peoples raided each other, took slaves, etc, long before Westerners arrived. (As I understand it, that statement is a verified historical fact. But there’s lots of argument and debate about the extent.) If history is any guide then there were previous peoples living here that whose memory has been obliterated with the passage of time. That doesn’t make those that remained bad or worthy of what happened under colonization, it just makes them, well, human. To act otherwise is to participate in a farce, and furthermore has nothing to do with the ethical questions of what to do now.
Example: I grew up in south Florida. The local tribes circa the arrival of the Spaniards no longer exist. They were completely destroyed through a combination of warfare and slave-taking by the Seminoles, another tribe not native to Florida, who sold off a number of the slaves they took to the British.
As for the school stuff, I looked at the VIVA platform, and I admit I’m surprised people find this stuff objectionable. Sure, people that say things like “the concept of merit is racist” will be annoyed, but those people shouldn’t be near the levers of power anyway.
As I’ve mentioned before, we moved here from the Bay Area. In SFUSD, the public school district in San Francisco, students are well-trained in reciting derivatives of Judith Butlerian gender ideology nonsense, essentially conspiracy theories about how the cisheteropatriarchy dominates all, even the notion of biological sex is socially constructed, to say nothing of the insanity that is peddled there on racial matters, but they can’t perform basic algebra. A bad combination, but sadly one that is commensurate with the vision of a highly motivated minority of folks that dominate education credentialing.
Wow! Thanks infrequent poster. That is a real eye opener. Either most of the candidates are clueless about what a capital project is or they knew but decided to spout on pet priorities instead of answering the question.
6 of 15 SD61 candidates listed things that could reasonably be called capital projects.
Other candidates listed things like combating racism, denying climate change, defunding private schools as “capital projects” – Wow!
Yes, please beware of the VIVA folks running for SD61 Trustee, it’s a brand of politics which I truly believe does not align with the majority of residents’ views here.
If you’re not sure who to vote for in SD61, perhaps consider Kyle McStravick (https://twitter.com/mcstravick_kyle) – he’s got an urban planning background and is committed to preserving music education in public schools, supporting reconciliation efforts, supporting education around sexual orientation gender identity, as well as leveraging his urban planning background to help the District navigate real estate issues. He’s also rumoured to be a poster in this comment section, albeit not a frequent one.
For an example of how a planning background might be useful for a Trustee, take a look at the Capital Daily’s candidate survey, specifically the answers to the question about candidates top three capital project priorities – and see how few candidates even understand what “capital project” means: https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/the-capital-daily-school-board-election-database
Luckily, Canada is still sort of a free country with full rights of mobility which means I can choose to move here, as I did a year and a half ago, and tell you what you can do with it. That, and living in a nation of immigrants, must really bug you Market….
Weird
That’s legally true, but it’s also debatable in some cultural or perhaps moral sense. The Douglas Treaties objectively exist, but there are questions surrounding whether the signatories adequately understood what they were signing. Keep in mind, these were societies with only an oral tradition. Written, signed contracts were utterly alien to them as transferring land stewardship (or more literally, occupation) in their culture was done through ceremony (i.e. potlatch) and passed from one family to another. Vagueness of the treaty’s description of the ceded land aside, from our perceptive, a signed, written contact from the 1850’s might seem undebatable. From an indigenous perspective at the time, I don’t think they could arrive at that conclusion so easily.
The second insight we can have is that in western cultures, land is a commodity that can be bought and sold and something to have dominion over. In many indigenous cultures, land is an extension of the people. They are the land, the land is them – which carries enormous spiritual and cultural significance. Asking them to cede it is a bit like asking one of us to cede an arm or a leg. It almost doesn’t make any sense in that respect. How could I give away something that is what I am? Would you trade it for blankets?
Could the Chiefs at that time had enough exposure to European culture to understand this cultural contrast when they placed the X at the bottom of the treaty? Perhaps, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Only if you’re speaking in a strictly historical sense. We also have Nisga’a, Maa-nulth, Tsawwassen, and Tla’amin. Soon we’ll have 2 more on Vancouver Island alone.
The Douglas Treaties cover approximately 930 square kilometres (360 sq mi) of land around Victoria, Saanich, Sooke, Nanaimo and Port Hardy, all on Vancouver Island that were exchanged for cash, clothing and blankets. The terms of the treaties promised that they would be able to retain existing village lands and fields for their use, and also would be allowed to hunt and fish on the surrendered lands.
The treaties are endlessly disputed for a number of reasons and have been subject to numerous court cases. One of the major controversies regarding the treaties is the actual terms of the treaties were left blank at the time of signing and a number of clauses and pages were instead inserted at a later date.
To try to pretend that you have more of a right to this city than anyone is even more absurd.
The only reason you were born here was because it was violated the first time. So why should you have rights to anything when it’s based on a violation.
This is exactly how we ended up with blanket single family housing zoning in the first place. So really just undoing a historic injustice.
“Really, Victoria and Saanich should be kicking out anyone that has arrived since 1843, and give the land back to the people that it belongs to.”
James, this is all really quite off. First of all, Victoria is actually on ceded land. There Douglas Treaties, by Governor James Douglas numbered 14 and are the only treaties in BC, except for a portion of Treaty 8, a federal treaty, that covers a portion of North-East BC. It was the right-wing governor Trutch who abandoned the treaty process in BC after Douglas retired with racist assumptions about First Nations cultures.
To try to use and manipulate First Nations history to justify development is purely absurd, and no one with a real concern for the issues involved would take such a shallow argument.
The whole reason it was wrong to take land from First Nations in the first place, was because they occupied that land first. The solution to this problem is the treaty process. The solution is not to violate the principle of first occupancy a second time against a people who were born here. Obviously, people who were born here, or who have been here a long time, have a claim to remain and to manage the area in their interests. You either have healthy boundaries or you don’t.
And if you are so concerned about First Nations interests, have you bothered to ask members of the Esquimalt and Songhees about how they feel about rampant growth on the island. I think not! Well I have, and generally what you get is a big NO.
No, Vancouver Island is not a country and there are federal obligations including the freedom of people to move about the country as they wish. But you also get to control zoning at a local level and efforts to sneak through changes without open and free debate are disgusting. Hats off to Leo for opening up the issue with this article.
Another 52 week high for the 5 year yield. I suspect fixed rate mortgages will be going up by end of the week.
I’m a 36 year old who works for government, has kids under 5 and bought a house in Fairfield with an unexpected “flip” along the gorge in 2017. I am voting for your top candidates for Victoria simply because I want my daughter to be able to live in the same amazing, walkable, friendly, and safe neighborhood we enjoy. Thank you for all your research, thoughtfulness, and citizenship Leo!
Thanks for advocating Leo!
I already voted, but I’m glad we agree that the best solution that local governments can provide to housing prices is supply, and it’s great to see that my Victoria picks align closely with yours. Hopefully we’re on the right path.
A big ongoing concern, of course, is the main supply fix on the table is “Missing Middle” initiative, which is a half measure at best, by any standard. We will soon see if Vancouver blows past us here in Victoria and what the effects are. Hopefully, a new council will be emboldened to initiate the Missing Middle plan and push for more soon.
I also think it’s so interesting how easy it was to miss the fundamental importance of the supply problem and yet this has really clicked for a lot of people recently, myself included.
It’s hard to see the supply issue, of course, because we have BOTH an underlying supply deficit and a secondary problem of excessive demand. Demand is the proximate issue that elevates prices, but you cannot defeat excessive demand in the long run without relaxing the supply constrictions that enable speculators to drive up demand and escalate prices.
So while it’s on the feds and the province to peal back all of their demand side measures, we really need the municipalities to step up on the supply side.
LoL! Then we’d all be so poor we’d have to leave. The whole world operates on growth. It’s unfortunate and needs to change but probably won’t happen in our lifetimes.
Market2022, that whole comment was the most “I got mine” NIMBY post i’ve seen here in a while. Also pretty elitist to claim that anyone living here for less than 20 years has less of a right to be here than you do. I’ve been here 21 years so guess I pass your test, whew.
If you sailed with Champlain you are probably OK. Anything after that – a bit sketchy.
Thanks for putting that out there. Somehow I was pretty sure that was the case as this blog and your persona here pretty much demonstrates integrity.
Mighty accepting of you.
My kids are fifth generation Victorians. Do they have more right to stay than you do? Just wondering.
CBC marketplace doing an episode on mortgage fraud – this Friday. Should be interesting: https://www.cbc.ca/news/marketplace/mortgage-fraud-1.6613883
Not having been born in Victoria, I am one of those outsiders who never shared milk with my neighbours. In fact, where I came from, sharing milk usually led to a public flogging in the town square, if only to alleviate our fear of pursuing money. But at least we knew how to spell “neighbour”.
I think I noped out of Nextdoor shortly after joining, that place is worse than facebook. For anyone that is (justifiably) concerned about developer influence, we strictly forbid donations from anyone in the development industry and ensured that no one working on any of these projects was connected to developers or working for any specific political candidates. The discord is open and anyone (including developers) are free to join and discuss there of course. Personally even though I never sold any homes I’ve now found a way to retain access to the real estate data without a real estate license, so will be giving up my license shortly to remove the optics of that conflict.
Thanks for your housing advocacy Leo
As a side note, according to some NIMBY types on Nextdoor you are just a shill for the developers who want to ruin our neighborhoods. Apparently you also want to abolish all zoning or other restrictions on land use.
If I vote your recommended candidates will I finally be able to start my own artisanal oil refinery in Fairfield?
Market- The same can be said for the entire country. As more new immigrants come into Canada, more farmland is being consumed and more people are moving west. Add to that all the retirees that are flush with cash, you’ve got a problem. Unfortunately, the coast has the mildest climate that attracts people wanting to escape long harsh winters.
No telling what the devastation in Florida is going to do to the cost of building materials, if you can get any. From the looks of it, they have to rebuild 2or 3 Victorias. Don’t hold your breath hoping a politician has any answers, they don’t.
And if you wish to slow or stop development, then the choices are not on the above list. Your Council choices would be Chambers, Brownoff, Izard, Lord. I think there may be more but those are what comes to mind.
Personally I think anyone who isn’t lək̓ʷəŋən aren’t true Victorians. They just don’t have the cultural ancestry to appreciate the area. History from elsewhere. It’s sad. Invasion from the inside out, really.
Really, Victoria and Saanich should be kicking out anyone that has arrived since 1843, and give the land back to the people that it belongs to.
It already is, and has been for decades.
Maybe we should make Vancouver Island its on country and cap the population at 900,000 for the entire island to ensure things never change.
I am totally against the agenda to solve the housing crisis by cramming more and more people onto farmland. Densification is not so bad, but we should not be building on farmland.
The real issue is too many people from outside the area moving in with no history, no real understanding of Victoria. In my view, people who arrived in the last couple decades are not true Victorians. Not bad people. But people with a history from elsewhere. Not true Victorians. Most of the people driving growth are not loyal to Victoria who make money from growth some way, some how. It’s sad. A kind of filibuster. Invasion from the inside out, really.
Really, Victoria and Saanich should be deterring new arrivals as much as possible. More traffic, more infrastructure, more growth will undermine the natural environment and continue to decline the quality of life for just about everyone. The Vision should be one of small, peaceful, and social communities where sharing milk with your neighbor trumps the fearful pursuit of money.
New people coming to appreciate the environment should definitely work hard to preserve it and should not feel bad about voting for council that will seek to do so. Otherwise, it might just turn out like the some of the other sprawling cities in Canada many of us want to avoid emulating.
Mainly some chatter from people in the know. But also:
https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/viva-victoria-ppc-municipal-school-board-election
https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/comments/xuu3uf/update_viva_pretending_to_be_island_health/
https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/comments/xctutz/eli5_viva_victoria/
https://thetyee.ca/News/2022/10/11/Victoria-Right-Wing-Slate/
A hefty sprinkling of salt on all of that, but sadly not much surprises these days…
I see this one that stands out:
Any others?
Super helpful and saves me a lot of time and energy to have this list. I now know who I will vote for.
Great work. Congrats on identifying an issue important to you and actually doing something about it. I will be using your list.
I have seen mentioned a few times that VIVA Victoria school trustee candidates are a grass-roots organization trying to bring some questionable ideologies to the school curriculum.
Just wanted to say thanks for the blog and also the candidate list from Homesforliving.ca. I used the list and voted last night.
Flyer touts method for illegally voting twice in Victoria municipal election
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/flyer-touts-method-for-illegally-voting-twice-in-victoria-municipal-election-5941304