Vancouver premium fades, but it’s still a lot of money
After 6+ years of price stagnation following the Great Financial Crisis, two things turned the market around in 2014/15: the improvement of affordability from years of dropping rates and rising incomes, and the start of a surge of Vancouver buyers.
Since then, Vancouver buyers have remained a substantial factor in the market, but the rate seems to be influenced at least partially by the Vancouver premium: in other words how much more expensive Vancouver is compared to Victoria. It’s logical that if you live in Vancouver and can cash out big by moving here, you’ll be more likely to be tempted to do so. On a relative basis, that factor hit its peak in 2015, when the average Vancouver detached house was over twice as expensive as the average house in Victoria.
In recent years the ratio has been falling again. With Vancouver houses around 80% more expensive than Victoria today, it’s probably a little higher than the historical norm but not by that much.
However while the Vancouver premium is back to where we were a decade ago in percentage terms, the rate of Vancouver buyers is not. In 2013, VREB agents reported that only 5.4% of buyers moved from Vancouver, while in 2023 that was still 9.6%. A drop from the 2022 level of nearly 12%, but still quite elevated. I believe part of the reason is that the Vancouver premium for detached properties in absolute terms also remains very high at just under a million.
While the correlation is far from perfect, cashing out of Vancouver and getting a Victoria house plus nearly a million today is undeniably more attractive than doing the same thing a decade ago and being left with half that amount. The fact that both represent 80% premiums is likely less meaningful to real life buyers.
For that reason, while the rate of Vancouver buyers may drop further in 2024 (few want to sell in a weak market), I don’t think we’re getting back to that 5% level anytime soon. I don’t have data on this, but anecdotally most of those Vancouver buyers would be buying into the detached market.
Also the weekly numbers
| April 2024 |
Apr
2023
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk 1 | Wk 2 | Wk 3 | Wk 4 | ||
| Sales | 131 | 637 | |||
| New Listings | 466 | 1036 | |||
| Active Listings | 2801 | 2043 | |||
| Sales to New Listings | 28% | 62% | |||
| Sales YoY Change | — | -23% | |||
| New Lists YoY Change | — | -24% | |||
| Inventory YoY Change | +39% | +50% | |||
| Months of Inventory | |||||
I usually don’t show the percent change of new listings and sales to the same week a year ago because small differences in dates (remember we are comparing to the closest Monday) swing the comparison a lot early in the month and with the timing of Easter we have several confounds. That said, it’s a strong start to the month, with the first 7 days bringing in 65% more new listings than the first 7 days of April 2023. Sales meanwhile are at at best keeping up with the year ago pace.
Sure many listings at the start of the month will be re-lists, but that’s true every month. It’s pretty clear that we have much healthier new listings activity than a year ago. One thing to note is that last April was a weak month for new listings (-24% from April 2022) so part of this is base effect. Inventory now up 39% is also the strongest we’ve seen since last May. The listings side has created a markedly cooler market than a year ago, and that gap has been growing.
The same is evident in the prevalence of over-ask sales (happening in 11% of sales today VS 16% a year ago), and months of inventory which remains solidly above the trend from last year. As has been the case for some months, the most competitive segments are the detached properties under a million in the core, along with townhouse substitutes in the same areas.
On the new supply side, the BC government has mandated that municipalities allow Small Scale Multiunit Housing (3-6 homes) on all urban lots, with a deadline of June 30th, 2024 for municipalities to update their zoning. If done correctly, it could be a game-changer for infill housing, turning the construction of tri to sixplexes from a multi-year rezoning ordeal with uncertain outcomes to a simple building permit. However there’s plenty of opportunity for municipalities to legalize these forms on paper only, with enough other restrictions to make adoption very slow or non-existent.
For example Delta is making only minor changes to expand legal duplex and suite areas, while leaving setback and height regulations unchanged. As we learned from Vancouver’s ineffective duplex upzoning or Victoria’s initial missing middle policy, it’s likely too restrictive to yield a lot of housing. Meanwhile Burnaby is seemingly intent to make the new forms buildable, legalizing a diversity of infill options including multiplexes and fee-simple rowhouses in various configurations, while relaxing lot coverage rules for the new forms. Watch for each local municipality to release their proposed zoning reforms in the coming weeks. The success or failure of this initiative rests with the municipalities for now.
On the demand side, Trudeau has mentioned that some mortgage changes are coming on or before the budget on April 16th. I’m thinking it will be either extended amortizations for first-time buyers or (as was an election promise) an increase in the CMHC insurance limit to $1.25M. The former would have no discernable market impact, but the latter would really break the current dam that exists at the $1M mark (and likely push prices up somewhat for properties above that barrier). Housing is the focus of the budget this year, and they’ll try to pull out all the stops to reverse course on an issue that they’ve lost voter confidence on.
Thanks for the chart.
Sorry Marko – your parking study failed to account for the parking needs of the squirrels.
New post: https://househuntvictoria.ca/2024/04/15/the-new-federal-housing-plan/
Outrageously high!
Yeah, we’re screwed.
Too many people want this, or at least keep voting for this.
Just came across the new city soil testing procedures for a COV SFH….home owner told me her builder is budgeting $14k (an expenses that didn’t exist last year when building a home).
“Due to recent changes to Provincial Legislation related to soil relocation and soil
receiving sites that came into effect on March 1, 2023, the applicant is required to
retain the services of a Qualified Professional for any project requiring excavation
and disposal of any volume of soil for the purpose of characterizing the soil and
determining a suitable disposal facility. The soil assessment must include samples
from proposed service trench locations, with a report to be provided to the City. This
is required to allow the City to provide the most accurate estimate and to install the
new services most efficiently. Additionally, soil from a property with a current or
former BC CSR Schedule 2 Activity must comply with provincial soil relocation
requirements, including the one week notification period prior to soil relocation.
o A Street Occupancy Permit from Transportation Engineering will be required for
work in the roadway.
This is required to complete cost estimates for new City services.”
How much government owned land is there inside the urban containment boundary?
Not enough, and expanding cities is very difficult politically. Eby isn’t even willing to entertain that idea.
Rents were up 8% across NZ in 2023. A little higher in Auckland (9.1%). Doesn’t look to be a rent miracle anywhere in NZ in 2023.
The provincial actions aren’t as impactful as the B.C. government would like you to believe. For example, Ravi keeps going around to talks (I went to one in Oak Bay) and saying “we’ve removed public hearings from OCP compliant projects.”
What do you think when you hear that? You think, okay if OCP says four story building on XYZ street a developer can build a four-story building. That isn’t the complete picture thought, municipality can still roadblock the project at committee of the whole or land use committee or some other non-sense. A developer proposed an OCP complaint project in View Royal and it was shot down.
I texted the builder I ran into Slegg Lumber this morning to send me COV comments on his multiplex and wow….insane. I don’t think Barrister has to worry about streets being stuffed with multiplexes anytime soon.
and my bookkeeper sent me a breakdown of my consultants so far for a rezoning application in Colwood (still not rezoned). One of these is for a biologist to put together a report that squirrels were spotted on the property 🙂 (I don’t blame the biologist, I blame the municipality).
The worst part is after spending 16k on a traffic/parking study the counsellors at one of council meetings kept saying “all these traffic reports are the same, I don’t put any value or trust in them.” Well, why is the muncipality forcing me into a parking study? (even thought the building meets at parking bylaws with two spots to spare).
$15,981.17
$18,684.17
$3,960.12
$2,491.12
$136,973.59
$13,210.53
$2,968.87
$2,541.00
$546.00
$4,856.25
$4,550.98
TOTAL $206,763.80
Actually Caveat that’s not a bad idea. I would tweak it a bit. The government should develop land subdivisions and sell off lots by a lottery to contractors under the condition that construction has to be started in the next two years.
We need to open up more land to small scale contractors rather than have the big land developers sit on the land.
“Relaxed” zoning was extended to all major cities in NZ in 2021.
A critique from the fellow who wants the Australian government to expropriate land, build houses and distribute them at below cost via a lottery.
Meanwhile back in the real world removing barriers to building housing will result in more housing getting built.
The real question in B.C. is whether the provincial actions will actually result in lower barriers to building housing or whether municipal governments will just layer on enough costs, obstacles, and bureaucracy to effectively cancel out the provincial changes.
Whatever,
I pointed that out to Leo back in December. https://househuntvictoria.ca/2023/12/11/summary-of-housing-policy-actions/#comment-109148
Not surprisingly, Leo is sticking with support of the Auckland upzoning study. He replied here https://househuntvictoria.ca/2023/12/11/summary-of-housing-policy-actions/#comment-109158
Many of these urban planning studies are pseudo-science anyway, so it’s hard to know what to make of them. Even the believers in the “Auckland miracle” tell us it will take years to see significant results here.
Meanwhile, Auckland rents are up 9.1% YOY in 2023, rising more than any NZ city, so the “miracle” may be fading.
Maybe they should ban str/airbnb 🙂 https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2024/02/median-weekly-rent-continues-to-rise-auckland-regains-status-as-most-expensive-place.html
@ Marko the difference bw Airbnb long stay vs short might also be the purpose of the stay. So if it’s 100 days but not the person principal residence. Not sure but I think I’ve heard of some Airbnb hosts vetting on that criteria. Also would be interesting to read RTB decisions and see if they recognize that distinction.
@Barrister
“In November 2023, the Province introduced legislation requiring local governments to allow 3, 4 or 6 units per lot in all single-detached zones, depending on lot size and location. This will be done through changes to the zoning bylaw. The District of Saanich has until June 30th, 2024 to complete the changes to the zoning bylaw. ”
Guess they’ve gotta wait a couple months before they do anything.
Guess they would have to subdivide it to get more. Could easily fit 6 big places though.
Douglas Todd: Famous New Zealand study may not actually show mass upzoning works
Opinion: Other scholars have concluded any increase in housing builds was minimal and probably a normal part of a cyclical business
It’s the study heard around the world, often cited as the answer to the housing-affordability crisis in big cities.
The research purported to show that blanket property upzoning in pricey Auckland, New Zealand, led to a dramatic increase in new housing units. Studies led by Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy, an economist at the University of Auckland who has long advocated increased density, have been reported on in newspapers of the left, right and centre, including The Economist, The New York Times and The Spectator. But is Greenaway-McGrevy’s conclusion — that mass upzoning caused strong new housing supply — an urban myth, as a number of scholars suggest?
The toughest critique of Greenaway-McGrevy’s studies — which said Auckland ended up with about 21,000 more housing approvals, or four per cent more housing units, over a five-year period after New Zealand passed countrywide upzoning in 2016 — is from Australian scholars Cameron Murray and Tim Helm, which they spell out in a series titled The Auckland Myth.
Their analysis maintains Greenaway-McGrevy’s May study of Auckland doesn’t prove upzoning increased net housing supply. Importantly, it doesn’t even suggest upzoning lowers prices.
The critical scholars maintain that handing blanket upzoning to developers, by allowing them to build higher towers or squeeze more units onto a lot, hands existing owners startling new property rights and profit, which raises prices.
In addition to pointing to methodological problems in the Auckland study, the scholars say the modest increase it found in housing activity can largely be attributed to normal “boom and bust” building cycles.
Significantly, they say, Auckland’s upzoning mostly led to the city giving mere “consent” to more houses. But when demolitions were taken into account, significant net new housing units didn’t necessarily materialize.
Not sure if that makes sense, Airbnb (the platform) has something called “Long Stay.” If you set the minimum at 90 days, aren’t you clearing every single STR regulation (provincial and municipal)?
Is there a law/regulation that prevents you from using Airbnb as a platform to rent to someone for one year, for example? Does the government force the guest/host into a RTA tenancy agreement beyond a certain lenght of stay? Curious, I am not sure.
Rentals longer than 30 days aren’t considered STR by the COV bylaw so you don’t need a COV license.
So airbnb is wrong saying you need a license for 30+ long stays.
You can show airbnb the COV application and the bylaw that defines a STR as <30 days. And ask airbnb to show you something saying you need a license. You’re likely speaking to an inexperienced airbnb support person.
I vaguely remember talk that all AirBnB rentals in BC will need to carry a license number or maybe that was for the city of Victoria.
Have to love public administration….received an email this morning from AirBnb
“Hi Marko,
As you may know, Hosts in Victoria are required to display a business licence by May 1, 2024 to continue hosting. If you haven’t started the process to apply for a licence for your listing(s), we recommend starting as soon as possible to protect your ability to host.”
so I head over to https://www.victoria.ca/media/file/2024-short-term-rental-business-application-form
which notes
“All related documentation and information are available at victoria.ca/str. For information or assistance completing this form, please contact
Bylaw and Licensing Services at 250.361.0215 or email str@victoria.ca.”
and I have a question so I phone the number on the application….nice person, but he doesn’t deal with STR licensing….transfer to different department that doesn’t answer, phone multiple times and so on. Like how do you have a number for questions on a form and that individual has to transfer you to a different department.
I am really curious as to how this will go down as one of the signatures required on the form is from the strata and my strata is 30 day minimum (which I do only 30 day minimum), but for principal residence under COV you can do 4 times a year under 30 days so COV is asking my strata to sign a document that I can do rentals under 30 days which they won’t go for.
***Update, got in touch with the STR department and according to COV if I am doing minimum 30 day rentals I don’t need a licence (but Airbnb wants one?) If I am renting two or more rooms I need a long term rental licence so I guess if I have a one bedroom condo (principal residence) I don’t need either but if its a two bedroom condo you need the long term one………..fak this is confusing.
Does anyone know for a principal residence Airbnb rental of >30 days do you need a licence in the COV?
***Further update, Airbnb support telling me I do need a licence even for 30+ day long stays, opposite of what COV is telling me.
and we wonder why productivity in this country is poor 🙂
I have no problem with people putting stuff out for others to take/use. But if it’s not gone in 48 hours then take it back and deal with your own garbage. And obviously no one wants your crappy couch, stained mattress or CRT monitor from the 1980’s
6 stabbings in Winnipeg is a slow weekend.
In other news, couch and mattress season appears to have come early this year in Victoria where lazy POS abandon their garbage on the curbs for their once neighbours to stare at and deal with….
You’re just stigmatizing vulnerable people making it your fault that it’s happening… Being facetious (unfortunately needs to be said because some would actually seriously say that).
another stabbing in downtown Victoria, is that like close to half a dozen in a month?
More precisely:
If you want to be close to Asian markets and don’t want to deal with corruption Singapore doesn’t have much competition. HK used to be in the game but China has scotched that. For those of you who think there are too many non-permanent residents (e.g. TFW) in Canada:
That’s out of a total population of 5.637 million.
Of my transactions under $1 million a large portion involve one of my clients, or both, being employed by public service. Out of control spending/hiring in terms of public service not only isn’t placing boots on the ground in terms of building housing it also further increases housing demand in certain price segments such as Langford townhomes. In my view Langford townhomes, for example, only have so far to fall despite that increased inventory as they will also have support floor of 2x public service incomes.
Max tax rate on personal income in Singapore is 20%. You earn 20k tax-free. Corporate tax rate is 17%. Health care is excellent although there is a cost-sharing so not entirely free but affordable unlike the states. It costs Singapore 1/3 of what Canada spends per person. Public service functions well. Banks are stable.
Of course there are downsides including a big population in a small area, summer weather, high cost of living, fewer civil liberties, and long working hours. I’m sure many others. The point being that there are public service lessons to learn.
Companies and individuals have an increasingly global view re. residency and corporate headquarters. Proctor & Gamble moved to Singapore. Who is choosing to come to Canada? Largely people who cannot afford other options and not international businesses.
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/canada/singapore?sc=XE74
The Bank of Canada’s opinion on this:
https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/taux-analyses/analyse-eco/etude-speciale/special-report_240311.pdf
Gosig, it would be better if you only got to keep 10% of the bonus and the rest would be used to build social housing for people more deserving than you.
After 3 years of my company making no profit… we just closed a quite profitable 2023. And we were rewarded with a good bonus. 47% of which I got to keep. Not bitter. I’m sure the deducted money will be used prudently. I would probably have just blown it saving for my retirement anyway. (No pension)
Totoro, they are not about to change how things work, and adding another massive government program just means increasing more of everything. Be careful of what you wish for because they wont deliver it the way you want. Why would you expect otherwise.
Getting status in other countries can be a bit of a challenge in many cases. By the way the solution may be to just make sure that you never get sick.
Except you’ll pay a very large departure tax bill on your Canadian assets to become a non-resident. It probably does not make sense for anyone but a very high income earner who can work online from anywhere to do this. You’ll need a second passport or permanent residency in a low tax jurisdiction to make it viable.
I’m not doing this, but for the first time I was motivated to look into it just because I am not happy with my government’s performance on health care in particular.
Fixable by electing the CPC with PP as prime minister
That’s why people are flocking to Alberta, their premier gives J.T. the finger every chance she gets. And the people support her.
Totoro , Ya the writing is on the wall , Canada is a very inept and dysfunctional country . Keep what u like about it and shop around for the rest .
I have no problem contributing to social housing via additional taxation. I have a problem when I’m taxed disproportionately and on an increasing scale and I don’t see results.
Health care and housing have been left to deteriorate for years. The public service has expanded while our economic productivity declines. The drug crisis is insane.
I have an overall problem with waste and political posturing about solutions that are not real and never materialize. Or miss the mark completely because they are essentially vote-buying moves. Math does not lie and good policy is based on good data.
It is like patriotism. Good to be patriotic? Yes – but. Germans were patriotic to the point of endorsing genocide as a solution. At some point you need to assert individual control over what you will and will not participate in and endorse.
James, dont know the zoning for that lot but if it is regular lot I dont think so or is it prezoned?
Totoro, I am assuming that you are okay paying an extra 20 or 25% in taxes on your business to pay for all the social housing that you want built. You are the target taxpayer as a small business owner so stop complaining when you want the government to spend even more on massive projects.
Although, it sounds like maybe it is more a matter of keep taxing other people while I leave the country with all my goodies.
Sorry, but your side by side posts triggered that.
Sure, but that would have to have a zoning change approved. Could you not build 28 townhouses on that land right now?
How do you do that with the unions involved?
We’ve been giving some consideration to becoming a non-residents.
I love Canada for many reasons, but I resent paying for an ineffective public service and living with the result in ex. poor access to health care combined with disproportionate taxation. If I felt the taxes I pay were put to good use I’d be okay to pay even more. Heck, I donate to social causes for this reason.
Balance still favours remaining here, but for the first time in my life, Canada is giving me a reason to look abroad for retirement.
Attitudes will change if the rents are cheap. In Vienna and Singapore these are culturally acceptable options and in Vienna you’ll find those with and without means in public housing.
I think that’s the reason Harper cut it.
In Singapore the typical low cost property for the masses is a leasehold, and not owned. They have a special term for properties that are owned as fee simple – a “landed property”. And those landed properties in Singapore are uncommon and incredibly expensive, higher than Vancouver prices for example.
By making them leasehold properties, Singapore (or any other country) is able to subsidize the construction without giving anything to the tenants – since the government owns the home. That actually makes sense, because the government can’t subsidize fee-simple homes and just hand them over as a windfall profit to the lucky homebuyer at subsidized prices.
I mention that because leasehold properties are available in Victoria, Vancouver and elsewhere at very affordable prices. For example, you can get a 50 year leasehold for $300k in Vancouver west end. But few people want them. So if we build thousands more leasehold properties, maybe nobody wants them.
My opinion is that Canadians want to own their homes, and not be leaseholding shoebox sized apartments as they are in Singapore.
It’s not the same people every year though. Consider the university educated professional who pays no taxes while at school, is then employed at a high salary, then takes time off to have a child or two, then goes back to work, then retires.
Or the bank president’s wife who doesn’t need to have a paying job. Remember Canadians file individual returns and tax statistics are based on that.
40% of Canadians pay no net tax as they receive more in benefits than they contributed. 20% of Canadians pay 70% of all tax revenue.
You’re welcome.
If you think the country is at present an unproductive, unambitious basket case, stand by for a change for the worse when Atlas makes a disaffected shoulder movement.
My favorite real estate podcast had Ravi on the show – https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ryvRk-0B_2E&pp=ygUOUmF2aSB0b20gc3Rvcnk%3D
I think raising GST is probably political suicide for the liberals.
If government employees had skin in the game like the private sector there would be way more efficiency. Not saying there is not a very good reason to have government be non-profit, but would be great to have hard-nosed practical common sense solutions based on realistic projections for benefit rather than re-election.
There is a role for a strong elected leader with business sense to change things, but these people are few and far between and very few are attracted to public service given the social media circus you expose yourself to. I’ve been reading up on the pragmatic leadership of the late Lee Kuan Yew which led to Singapore’s success. Effective business-minded public bureaucracy was and is a big part of it.
Not sure what you mean? He is building in the COV (City of Victoria). You are going to get the same comments South Fairfield or Doncaster as same staff.
Big picture is it a positive for society if more and more people rent public housing? I view renting whether it be public or market as a hamster spinning on a wheel, how are you suppose to get ahead? I think we need more rentals but the way numbers are going purpose built rental construction will shortly overtake SFH/strata essentially guiding people into renting for life versus trying to get established into the market and build equity over 10-20-30 years.
I would think someone paying their home off over 30 years is also beneficial to the government?
Marko, which part of town is he building in and does that maybe make a difference.
This morning I was at Slegg Lumber and ran into a builder I know who is working on a missing middle building permit application in the COV. He showed me 7 pages of comments from City Staff in response to him submitting his plans…..and wow, the public is getting played hard by politicians. In my estimation the comments will costs him 10s of thousands to resolve and delay him another 12 months from getting a BP. The worse part is its all complete non-sense.
It’s getting boring agreeing with Totoro.
Public/Private joint ventures seem to be the better solution for long term housing. False Creek leasehold condominiums and rental buildings being an example that allows a city to rejuvenate its stock of low income housing every 60 to 90 years depending on the terms of the lease.
However, I am a bit disappointed with how the First Nation’s lands in Vancouver will be developed with prepaid leases.
Depends on the tax. If the feds want to raise taxes, best way would be to raise the GST, which was introduced because it doesn’t impact productivity or competitiveness. Remember it was originally 7%.
+1, great observation put into words. I think long term we are really really screwed in Canada.
Inventory not in the right places. I was in Langford again this weekend and there are a number of pockets where you have four townhomes (used re-sale) for sale, within a few hundred feet.
Then you have condo buildings specifically downtown with 12+ units for sale in one building.
The SFH core under a million inventory isn’t budging.
Exactly. Only sensible solution is probably going to be public housing built on government owned lands subject to long-term leases.
Higher taxes are definitely going to be an issue for productivity and retaining high performing workers. Much more common to see high income Canadians pursuing employment abroad or simply working abroad and becoming non-residents for tax purposes.
Higher taxes affect businesses too. As a business owner I find that government policy is already not that supportive. It seems like policy makers don’t get the basics of what makes and motivates successful small business in Canada. They probably don’t because policy makers don’t know what they don’t know unless they have been business owners which is very rare. They don’t know what it is like to be highly strategic and attentive because your survival is on the line, the stress of making a payroll and taking care of employees, or the pressing need to fund your own pension.
This is despite the fact that small businesses (1 to 99 employees) are 98% of all employer businesses and employ 2/3 of Canadians. They essentially fund most of the economy because government taxes these revenues to pay for its own employees and administration. Hit this sector too hard and entrepreneurs will move elsewhere or potential small business owners will look for government jobs instead.
should show the data by product type.
Read up on common sense and broaden your real world experience before posting links from the internet 🙂
President Donald Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to economist Arthur Laffer, whose disputed theories on tax cuts have guided Republican policy since the 1980s.
Laffer was credited with helping to spur income tax reductions around the world and boosting national economies as a result. Critics say the tax cuts he has espoused over the years have not produced the promised results and have instead contributed to growing income inequality and soaring budget deficits.
Looks like sales pace is picking up a tad, inventory build slowed down a tad.
You can have the best policies in the world but fee simple ownership will still go to the highest bidder. Notable that places with progressive policies like Vienna or Singapore don’t focus on fee simple ownership for the masses.
James: instead of the townhouses, maybe a 12 story building would get even more units.
Wouldn’t that be just the cities with the worst housing development policies?
2084 Ferndale Rd – $2.1 million in Gordon head for 4/5s of an acre of land. You could get how many new townhouses on there? 28?
No one said that. There is more avoidance of realizing income as tax rates rise. So raising rates may result in less income. If tax rates were 99%, almost everyone would try to reduce their realized income. And if rates were 1%, almost noone would do it. Read up on the Laffer curve if you have more questions.
LMAO, so people aren’t actively trying to do that now but will only do so if the tax brackets increase? Jesus christ…..
Patrick, we just continue the present policy of just increasing the number of government jobs which has accounted for almost all of the job growth in the last few years. Problem solved.
Yes, part of the “burn the furniture for heat” approach to solving the housing crisis. First we smoke out the foreigners, satellite families and stvr renters. So we can move into their homes.
So sure, why not send the rich packing as well with high taxes? All for a one-time gain of housing units. All these actions have a cost, which is reduced economic growth necessary to maintain jobs and prosperity.
Higher taxes here, on the other hand, would help with the housing crisis. It would encourage even more businesses and professions to move south of the border or elsewhere. Not going to effect me so I am fine with it.
Likely to be a “tax-the-rich” federal budget coming, with highest marginal tax rate to be raised. Current highest marginal rate (combined) is 53.5% in BC. Dumb idea, since rates are high already. Raising high taxes to “even higher” taxes often backfires, with less revenue realized, as people use legal strategies to realize less income (as per Laffer curve) It also doesn’t just tax the rich, it likely raises taxes for anyone selling an investment property with a large gain for example.
Best cities in the world as voted by capitalism
SELECT name FROM cities ORDER BY price DESC
Now we don’t have to argue.
The commercial lot in Rupert probably needs a couple million to decontaminate.
Lol wtf is Conde Nast? Forbes seems to think different.
Yes, in that Karen Carpenter died 13 years after the song (we’ve only just begun) was released. The song’s history is more interesting than that though.
Things worked out very well for the song and the composer.
The carpenters wrote a lot of their songs (eg Top of the World), but “we’ve only just begun wasn’t one of them”. That song was written as a bank commercial by Paul Williams. The song was a big hit for Paul Williams as well as the carpenters and the Paul Williams version made it into the Grammy Hall of Fame.
Chillin in Rupert. 20,000 sqft commercial lot right downtown by the water for $720k
“The measure of a society is how well they treat the most unfortunate people in their cities”
it is? i didnt realize how societies were measured. thank you.
As I recall, that really didn’t work out for the best for Karen Carpenter.
.
The measure of a society is how well they treat the most unfortunate people in their cities . So on a per capita basis what cities in Canada would the homeless consider the best to live in?
For most of the same reasons why we have chosen to live in Victoria, so would the homeless chose to live here. According to a 2020 Homeless Point in Time study on the homeless only 42% of the homeless have lived in Victoria for more than five years. 28% were first-year new comers, 18.5% moved to Victoria to follow family. Sounds a lot like the rest of us.
That might be a better gauge of the desirability of a city than a fluff piece in a tourism magazine.
Frank – you are making sense!
Why would that be relevant? Of course tourism Victoria reported that news, as did many other news sites.
e.g. National Post
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/victoria-conde-nast-worlds-best-city
520,000 readers of conde nast voted in the “ best of” awards and Victoria came out at the top.
Lol, did you expect tourism victoria to post something else? This place has gone down hill so much in because it is in a transition phase.
Views from an ivory tower are always better than the streets.
I don’t agree there. Over last 10 years…
Victoria SFH prices more than doubled (+115%) https://www.vreb.org/historical-statistics#gsc.tab=0
.. And as for our beloved city of Victoria in 2023, how great are all these high or “best city in the world” ratings!! (See pic) https://www.tourismvictoria.com/conde#:~:text=Cond%C3%A9%2520Nast%2520Readers%2520Vote%2520Victoria,premier%2520travel%2520magazine's%2520globetrotting%2520readers.
I compare Canada with other countries and I see things going in the wrong direction. Germany is a small country with limited resources yet is an industrial powerhouse. Canada, on the other hand, has unlimited resources but is an industrial weakling. Venezuela was once one of the wealthiest countries per capita and now is in complete collapse thanks to a corrupt socialist government. It also has unlimited resources but has severely mismanaged them while government authorities line their pockets. I see Canada becoming more like a Venezuela than a Germany.
Talking to a friend this morning and his niece went to Scotland to get her PHD in mathematics. She’s not coming back. A large number of our brightest individuals end up in other countries, it’s a huge brain drain. Why do you think we have a shortage of doctors? They don’t want to work in our flawed system, and can simply make more money in other countries. I usually agree with Patrick’s comments, not this one.
Patrick, glad to hear that you have finally begun, because the last ten years have not been great.
I don’t think so.
Canada’s future is bright, like the title of the Carpenters’ song… “We’ve Only Just Begun’’
Maybe that’s true, but it’s also really harsh, for the people who bought into specifically grandfathered units just trying their first leg on the property ladder in an environment where nothing else worked with the numbers. Anyways, for those of you thinking well, they had it coming, let’s hope you guys keep your big-boy britches on when the gov’t comes in hot with vacancy control and some of you end up holding the bag beholden to tenants & being forced to rent at increasingly below-market rates.
Oblio, that’s incredible and terrible! What craziness to put that tax burden on the tenant.
Yes even the ghost towns are getting pricey.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/goldtrailsandghosttowns/posts/10159235124392044/
Fascinating but I am starting to suspect that there are serious problems in this country
@max lay off the insults please and I don’t think the random pictures add to the discussion either thx
Can’t be the Woss I remember. Those seem to be rather optimistic prices….
Can someone tell me exactly what this young person was doing wrong being creative to get ahead -> https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/attack-on-property-rights-why-bcs-new-rental-rules-leave-some-owners-on-edge-7716966
Are we better as a society now that he has to leave his unit vacant 180 days a year?
Depends on the government. In Croatia the government encourages Airbnb and short-term rentals so people can make money and depend less on the government. No Airbnb restrictions, no Aribnb income tax (yes that is correct, on tax paid on Airbnb income you earn), no vacancy tax, etc.
I think the thought is if an airbnb operator can make money off tourists then they aren’t asking the government for handouts.
I can tell you not one person in the line up at the Janion pre-sale knew it was STR zoned. The sales team didn’t even pitch it to anyone.
Original Janion purchasers bought into the building by pure luck. You think the developer would have been selling pre-sales for $110,000 when a few years later they were worth $350,000?
But Leo, the government is forcing everyone to live in urban centers, that is why prices in Victoria/Vancouver/Toronto are so expensive 🙂
The comments section of HHV was a gem for 10+ years, unfotunately it all started going to s*** approximately two years ago and has just become worse and worse.
And you need Marko to teach you this? Its the chain link off to right.
Snowflake! Do you even know how to light a fire or cook?
I really hope that mute button works both ways…Because you are a whiner!
Thanks to Marko, now I know about the mute button. Very helpful for ignoring childish internet trolls.
This had better not be another false flag.
Should I bring my tomato plants In and head down to the bunker?
Iran has started it’s attack on Israel……
Just chilling in Woss, about an hour north of Campbell River
You do a lot of that. It doesn’t seem like It takes very much to amuse you.
Ya like those who bought STR in Victoria during the early days of 2012/13/14.
LMAO
I said, when you were young with balls of steel. Failure would be easily absorbed…You could rebound unscathed and try again.
You sound like a pussy!
Where did you read that? I think now might be the time to go back to Econ 101.
Risk and reward are two entirely separate concepts and don’t have to be correlated at all — see the Darwin awards as an example.
I think what you’re referring to is that in an efficient market, higher risk assets tend to offer a premium return because the market recognizes that you need to pay more for risk.
That doesn’t mean that every high risk action automatically comes with a high reward.
The people who know how to identify rewarding opportunities, without taking on excess risk, tend to have better outcomes.
OK. Fair enough. As I’ve previously said, it was a dumb move by government to shut down STR, and doubly so to not grandfather the existing properties.
I know you are uber wealthy. I have done very well myself. However If an Individual has to go BK…That will effect them for the rest of their life. This 7 year bullshit Is a myth. The first question a loans officer asks you Is “have you ever declared bankruptcy”?
Hard to see that (worst case) losing 100-150k adds up to “ They may never recover from such a blow…For the rest of their lives”.
Obviously if they bought multiple units it could add up. Hopefully there aren’t many in that situation. But it is investment RE, and that’s always risky as others have pointed out.
maybe 100k to 150k if someone bought at the absolute peak, $ amount wise it is not that much different than other products bought at the peak, but % wise it is more.
Here’s a trick question for renters, non-resident landlords, and others in the know:
Is a Canadian resident paying rent to a non-resident landlord required to withhold and remit 25 per cent of the rent to the CRA?
Yes! (The judge acknowledged “the harsh consequences,” in her decision [6 years rent x 25%, plus compounding interest, plus penalties]…Not knowing a landlord is a non-resident is not considered a valid excuse).
https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/481749/Foreign-landlord-fails-to-pay-taxes-CRA-goes-after-tenant
I don’t know, I’m not In the game. High rates, strata fees, commission, no future coming Into peak STR season. Not a good place to be. I could see the down payment being evaporated.
There Is an article In the TC about It.
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/short-term-rental-owners-fighting-against-province-and-city-of-victoria-8596130
How much did these str condos fall in value? Depending on when they bought, haven’t many of them still made a profit if they sell?
Risk equals reward. Do It when you are young. As you age, lower the risk.
Key word risks
If I hadn’t taken some very significant risks In my early twenties, I wouldn’t be as happy as I am right now.
Absolutely, RE investment has numerous risks. Want something more.certain? Try a GIC next time.
If someone actually paid attention to what was happening they would realize the clamp down on STR was only to get worse, not just in BC but globally. What you actually have is unsophisticated people putting alot of money in a asset at the top of the cycle thinking it was a fool proof way to make $.
So instead of doing that, one goes out and pays a premium and buys an STR. So basically tried to take a short cut and it didn’t end up working out.
For some people It only takes one financial blow like that. They may never recover from such a blow…For the rest of their lives.
Agreed, but the mob wanted blood and Eby complied.
In other words…They had It coming. Did the leaky condo Investors purchasing their unit(s) In the 1990’s have It coming too?
Should that also have been taken Into consideration?
Econ 101 also teaches you that the rule of law contributes to the creation of a stable financial environment where property rights are protected and investors feel trust in the transactional environment. A necessary prerequisite to a well-functioning economy.
The rule of law requires government to be conducted according to law and answerable for their acts in the ordinary courts. One element of the rule of law is that the law should be reasonably stable, in order to facilitate planning and coordinated action over time.
Regarding STR. ECON101 teaches you that political risk is the risk an investment’s returns could suffer as a result of political changes. Recall investment trusts way back in the early 2000s.
Those who invested into STRs should have taken this into consideration when purchasing their unit(s).
I’m all for being resourceful and agree with do what it takes to have what you want, but there are real limits in imposed by current affordability vs. income stats which present some significant financial barriers that did not exist in the past. Heck, it hard for a doctor to afford a house here.
A significant proportion of our population cannot and will not be able to overcome this economic mountain even with a life partner and it will cause compounding and cascading social issues – as it already is. Some of them will move away, which is probably smart, but this will leave fewer people to do median and below jobs. These jobs include the important services offered by child care workers, care aides, mental health workers, lpns, education assistants, and home support workers.
Everyone needs a secure place to live but not everyone can or will earn well above median incomes even if they try as hard as they can. These reasons include health conditions, aptitudes, language issues, and a background of poverty. 27% of Canadians have a diagnosed disability and this is a low estimate as many people do not know they have a disability or live with ex. undiagnosed depression for fear of stigma. These affect earning capacity and housing insecurity worsens health outcomes.
The answer is not always go get a well over median income job. I think at this point we need to look to our income stats and recognize that full time employees or employed families in the median band or below can no longer afford to buy a secure place to live and rental rates make it hard to get ahead. Ultimately, without family assistance or government investment in secure rental housing a greater % of our population will live in precarious and unaffordable housing no matter how hard they work.
Polygamy, marriage to more than one spouse at a time. Now you have six Incomes.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/polygamy-marriage
Yes, that would have been good.
Not really, being single is the ultimate privelage to get ahead. Unless things have changed, it allowed me to take risks to gain experience and earn higher wages by taking on risks with less stable jobs, that were more rewarding; having the ability to relocate on short notice; ability to take education opportunities; and don’t forget the ability to work extras and overtime to jump ahead of the whiny and lazy people that think it’s wrong for you to be promoted ahead of them…
Re. go get another job or a better job…
sure, of course, that’s a given option and part of the action often employed by the resourceful…it’s what gets you the down payment.
Hook up with a chick…Now you have two Incomes.
How about doing it the old fashioned way and go get another job or a better job?
That would have been the right thing to do, for sure 100%. This Is a devastating blow for a lot of people. Feel sorry for them.
I wouldn’t expect someone to be an expert in iPhones if they’d never tried an iPhone.
Similarily, I advise you to try out latest Tesla FSD before announcing what it can and cannot do. I’ve driven 5 times now from uplands to various spots downtown without a single intervention (other than some speed adjustments to suit my taste).
Anyway, if you don’t want to get a Tesla with FSD, then don’t! I’m just telling you, as a former curmudgeon, that I’m a convert and the new FSD is working great for me. No, not ready for level 3 (unsupervised), but huge improvements.
To beat on a dead horse, I had to weigh in on the STR zoning and echo Totoro in sentiment.
I continue to be dismayed, but no longer surprised, how housing assistance/incentives are so subtly skewed to help those from privilege (whether they see it or not) and hinder efforts of those without advantage (e.g. family assistance in the form of secure shelter, education, down payments, etc.).
People without privilege, especially singles, need to get really creative if they want to get ahead. And, while hard to image for some people on this forum, this may mean living in a small micro apartment with an aim to eventually sell to move up in the world, or perhaps save for another home and keep the micro unit as an investment vehicle for retirement – a retirement which may involve no inheritance, no work pension, and no assumption of government assistance. Choosing to opt into an apartment with a legally zoned business option is not fool hardy, it’s resourceful. If it were me under these circumstances, I’d feel extremely deflated and angry, especially when government is incentivizing and helping the purchase of new and/or bigger homes for first time buyers, and providing tax breaks, etc for people with a lot more advantage.
For example, why is society/government helping first time buyers to purchase new homes? If a first-time buyer can even consider buying a new home (versus an older home) they are already a member of a privileged class and should not be subsidized. Why does someone get a GST rebate if they purchase a new home for a relative to inhabit? They can afford to buy a second home, but we still provide a tax break to the family? I know those are federal examples, but think how frustrating it would feel. It boggles my mind.
I’m o.k. for policy and zoning changes to help the greater good, but those areas zoned specifically for STR should have been grandfathered – once sold, STR option ends, but not before. It’s also a bit of an arbitrary, inconsistent thing when they allow an exemption for the strip in Parksville, but don’t allow an exemption for others who purchased in other designated STR zones.
Had to get that off my chest
I think we have a different understanding about how technology advances. Stops and starts is the norm, not continuous improvement. This isn’t a simple process of miniaturizing transistors and increasing the processing capacity of computer chips (so-called “Moore’s law”).
Self driving vehicles need new technological breakthroughs to be viable. The current pattern recognition based systems simply aren’t up to the task.
I can’t believe how many idiots Tesla has taken money from over the years on AP & FSD. They’ve now tried it five times on me. Gave me 30-day trail on AP1 in 2016 then asked for $3k, no thanks. Then they gave me two 30-day trials twice in Europe, no thanks. Then they gave FSD to me when I bought my new Model Y here recently and now I am in a 30 day free FSD trail again. I’ve been using it the last three weeks and it simply sucks. My prediction is 2016 was we were 25 years out and fast forward to 2024 my prediction is we are 20 years out.
I do think Tesla is running out of people to con thought. FSD at one point was $12k then they ran out of all those idiots, then subscription was $199 and now it is $99…..if they offered it for $9/month I wouldn’t buy it. The only useful feature is the standard autopilot (which now comes included with car) in Europe on proper highways, but we don’t have such highways in the island.
(I love Teslas, but the FSD is a joke/scam in its current state, maybe in 15-20 years).
Good point.
Interesting, thanks. I’m looking forward to self-park, as that might be something very useful in tight squeezes in mall parking lots etc. The YouTube videos of it are impressive, where it always backs in so you can start out going forward which is much safer.
Keeping in mind that they can’t have two PRs at the same time.
Deryk, there is an election (subsection 45(2)) available to continue to claim the property as their PR for up to 4 years. CRA will accept a late election with some exceptions. Search “CRA 4 year principal residence election”.
If this is for future planning they would want to consider which way they think the market may go. You can’t undo the election AFAIK. They can get an appraisal done now (safest, but not cheap) but I think the BCAA percent change over a couple years would work as well and is free.
Good to know. Seems like the self park is currently not permitted by icbc.
Derek get a fair market appraisal if you are significantly above assessment and file the change of use.
Tesla FSD isn’t level 3, it’s level 2.
The difference is that level 2 requires constant supervision, which Tesla FSD is vigilant at monitoring. If you take your eyes off the road or hands off the wheel the FSD will warn you, and then disable the FSD if you dont comply. Whereas “ At Level 3, the driver can take their attention off the road for extended periods of time while the software takes over all of the vehicle’s longitudinal and lateral controls.”
There’s no requirement that you get appraisal. You self-declare the values based on your good faith estimate of “fair market value”. Of course if you’re audited, any supporting information like an appraisal would be very helpful to support your position. Especially if it’s different from the assessment,
You also need to file tax forms like schedule 3 and form T2091 as described here https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/personal-income/line-12700-capital-gains/principal-residence-other-real-estate/changes-use.html
Great invention, until it kills you. Apple gave up on the entire EV autonomous driving experiment for a reason. After spending billions of dollars that could have been put to better use. Like housing.
Patrick my understanding is that engaging the supervised autonomous driving feature voids your insurance coverage currently. Any use of level 3 vehicles on roadways is subject to 368 dollar ticket as of this month. Seems like level 2 is covered so maybe this is where you fit.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/road-safety-rules-and-consequences/self-drive
Hey Zach,
I agree with much of what you say. Especially for the robotaxi (no driver), which is years away.
However, like most technology, it’s constantly improving, and it’s not going to stay at the “student driver” level for long. For example, years from now cars may be sending/receiving data to other cars and a self-driving car could be far superior to a human. (Since they could know where cars are around corners etc.). I don’t mind being an early adaptor as it may help that happen.
Anyway, if you get a chance, you should check it out you might be blown away like I was with the latest FSD version. It’s a “ChatGPT” moment that might change your view of how good self-driving is now and where it may be headed.
If someone decides to rent out their principle residence for a year or two and then sell it, what is the standard way, or best way to establish the value of the home at the time of renting out the entire home and then selling it a year or two later?
If the Property went up in the one or two years I realize that they would have to pay capital gains on any gain. But how do you establish the actual value at the time of it no longer being one’ principle residence?
Especially if the house is worth more than the property assessment because of improvements etc.
Does Revenue Canada go by a real estate appraisal done at the time of the switch?
Do they need more than one independent appraisal done at the switch to revenue property?
Any thoughts?
You couldn’t pay me to supervise a student driver, so why would I want to buy the privilege to supervise a bad computer driver?
Several years ago a self-important billionaire assured people “self driving will be ready… next year”. He made that promise every year for a while until people stopped listening.
That promise is becoming increasingly unrealistic. Most observers in this area now doubt that self driving cars will ever be a reality with the current technology. Even in San Francisco they’re taking the robo taxis off the road.
I think I’ll save my money for something else.
Quick q for the community here, Zealty seemed to work for a few weeks to review Victoria sold data… but no longer works? Any insight? Big fan of this blog!
Tesla announced a huge price change on the latest option for Supervised Full Service Driving (FSD) in USA/Canada. It was $12,000 USD, but is now $99 /month in USA and Canada.
Available now as a one month free trial for people with existing teslas. I’ve added if to my Tesla for the last few weeks. While I wouldn’t pay $12,000 usd, I will pay $99/month when the free trial is over.
It drives well all over Victoria (supervised by the driver with hands on/near the wheel and eyes on the road of course). Still has problems (not reading some speed limits, stop/slow handheld sign at road work sites not followed, doesn’t fully yield to buses). Also drives should be smoother – excessive acceleration from stop for example. Also auto-park not enabled yet in Canada (just USA) for some reason. But overall is amazing and I’d expect them to solve those last few issues as well within the next year.
It’s like driving with a good student driver, who is not quite ready for the road test 🙂
Definitely not ready for “robotaxi” (no driver) yet – that could be years away imo. But this should make Tesla owners happy, and lead to more new Tesla sales too.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/tesla-cuts-full-self-driving-subscription-prices-in-u-s-canada-1.6845413
Pump and dump…Sucks to be them.
Same shit happened with wall street bets and game stop.
Kids made tens of millions!
Slow and steady…Just like The Hare & the Tortoise.
The kids that made the tens of millions…Are dead, or In rehab. Look It up.
The ones that knew It was to good to be true…Got out.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/30/gamestop-reddit-and-robinhood-a-full-recap-of-the-historic-retail-trading-mania-on-wall-street.html
I’ve sold 10 units at the Janion as the listing agent over the years and I wouldn’t classify any of the 10 sellers as wealthy investors.
In certain scenarios it made sense to pay the premium such as this tugboat operator ->
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/attack-on-property-rights-why-bcs-new-rental-rules-leave-some-owners-on-edge-7716966
That’s exactly what It Is. At the same time Its the tax on tax on tax on levels of the Government, the fees, the applications, the high Interest rates, the stress test.
Why are houses so unaffordable? Because the Government made them unaffordable…That’s why.
Cut the Government spending In half…Houses would be affordable!
I’m not saying cut health care…Or any of the shit that really matters.
I’m saying cut the fat off these upper echelon Government contract workers raking In $325k per year.
limited means so then you pay a premium and buy STR condo?
Even local governments were caught off guard. Why would the City of Victoria have voted to increase the licensing fee from $1,500 to $2,500 for STRs two weeks earlier if they knew this was coming.
Even @ $2,500 this ban vipes $2 million out of the COV budget and guaranteed they didn’t reduce any expenditures as a result.
Some people might say legal STR zoning attracted people who wanted to comply with the law.
But you are probably right.
the people who bought legal str units were young and foolish, old enough to know better, too desperate, too naive, too greedy, rich enough to handle a loss, so poor they should never have taken a risk, and basically just deserve what they got.
Absolutely nothing to do with reasonable reliance on legal zoning at a price point attractive to someone with more limited means and that would have been grandfathered under the Local Government Act if zoning changed, except for provincial intervention.
Have they actually specified what that “specified threshold” will be? And what are the levels at the moment?
This is interesting, everyone knew the rule coming in about 4.5x, but it’s interesting the cap that OFSI is putting on banks on how many highly leveraged borrower’s they are allowed to have on the books.
https://financialpost.com/fp-finance/banking/osfi-limits-banks-mortgages-highly-indebted-borrowers
It will be interesting to see how banks ensure they don’t have too many borrowers at the threshold or over.
So old enough to know better, and wealthy enough to absorb the loss. Even better!
You may want to reread my comment.
Don’t see it as a reckless decision myself and many of the people who bought legal STR units are of retirement age. In at least one case a retired couple who visit grandchildren here frequently and rent out when they go back home.
And what seems reckless now did not seem reckless then following a long period of appreciation pricing out renters. The person I am aware of who bought at 5% down was a first time buyer and had insecure rental housing before.
I guess the courts will answer this question in any event if the province does not offer to settle before it is heard. Be a couple of years before we get an answer and it will be what it will be.
LOL, lets not pretend the reality doesn’t go something like this:
– A few first movers realized the STR opportunity and made lots of money
– more people joined in and bid those properties up
– then everyone and their dog thinks they will be a genius doing this
– there is a housing shortage and STRs are in the cross hairs
– human nature is greed and ignores this and keeps bidding up STRs
– sound “insider contact” advice on HHV was ignored.
– shoe drops
– late comers holding the bag and crying.
LMAO too funny
Presumably “someone” was very young to have made such a reckless financial decision (at a time of huge uncertainty in the world)? So they will learn from their mistake, and will have time to recover financially?
What I find concerning is the amount of interference by this government in matters that are usually done at the municipal level.
Uhhh no, you are making an assumption that the legal-non conforming zoning use cannot be changed. I will bet no reputable lawyer would write a legal opinion saying that.
I believe that municipalities are required to grandfather existing zoning. Perhaps Marko can provide more detail on this. Nevertheless, this is a very unusual case of the provine being responcible for changing the zoning (at the request of the City of Victoria) which is almost unheard of in terms of this same scale operation.
They more than likely have the power to do this but but it is not anything foreseeable by the owners of these units when they purchased them.
Yes. It is called legal non-conforming uses when zoning changes and you are grandfathered. When you are grandfathered you can continue but you cannot change or expand your use and if you discontinue the use for a period of time you can lose it. However zoning is municipally controlled and in the STR case the province stepped in to override this with legislation.
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/r15001_14#division_d0e50260
What happened when the City of Victoria backdated a heritage designation on Rogers Chocolates with a new bylaw?
https://www.douglasmagazine.com/business-meets-heritage/
There was some legal recourse in the case under some acts, but when in doubt, it’s always best to file a lawsuit and see what happens.
But you are making an assumption that the zoning won’t change. Is there a legal basis you are making that assumption on?
I don’t know. I view it along the lines of you buy a property zoned for a bakery. You run a bakery for 10 years and on your business licence every year you pay $1,500 and it says “bakery” and then all of a sudden, the government decides that a bakery isn’t the flavour of the day and you can only operate a deli.
“Liberals say their plan to ‘solve the housing crisis’ will build 3.9M homes by 2031”
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/liberals-release-plan-solve-housing-152030186.html
it’s a gamble, not a sure thing. Just like all the missing middle lot buyers currently
How is that financial security when you pay a premium to do STR in a unit that is likely too small for long term living? Also, you could have pointed them to my “insider contact” info and they would have had like 3 months to unload 😉
They could have bought another place that was bigger for the same price. Shit happens when you yolo, may this be a good lesson for the future. If this played out the opposit way then they would likely be bragging about how much of a genius they were.
Oops didn’t read Leo already made my point…
STR regulation arrives and we are about to drown in froth and phlegm about government over reach.
Do any of you recall the spec tax? Government getting out their revolvers and aiming them at any filthy bourgeois rabble who deigned to leave their home empty?
Crickets then, apoplexy now. What’s the difference?
So, it is a mistake to buy real estate on the premise of zoning, size of lot, or other attributes you think may influence market value down the road, unless you actually needs those attributes? Not sure I agree with that. Buyers, for example, buy SFHs for principal residence on big lots they don’t actually need but feel that it may be better re-sale down the road for redevelopment purposes to a developer, etc.
Although the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not expressly protect property rights, such rights are created and are therefore protected by both common law and by statute law — although both can be changed by legislation.
“Why Property Rights Were Excluded from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” (1991) 24 Canadian Journal of Political Science 309.
Special Joint Committee on the Constitution and during Parliamentary debate on Bill C-60, Progressive Conservative MPs proposed that a right to “the enjoyment of property” be included under section 7 of the Charter. This amendment was rejected largely due to provincial government concerns, shared by federal New Democratic Party MPs, that entrenching property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could interfere with environmental, zoning and other land use regulation; public ownership, expropriation and regulation of resource-based and other industries; and with legislative restrictions on foreign ownership of land.
This is my exact concern, what’s next if this is demeed to be ok.
Did they?
I wouldn’t have expected a legal use to be removed. Back when I had nothing and no family help and was looking to find a way to get ahead I would have viewed this purchase as an opportunity to create some financial security as it came with STR options as backup to life circumstances and was an affordable way into the market.
We considered assisting one of our kids to buy in the Janion. We rejected it eventually for a number of reasons, but zoning risk was not one of them.
Really? Because life never changes and not using it this way now means they had no plan to ever use it this way and did not have a right to rely on the legal use they paid for?
Disagree. Every property owner should be concerned about a precedent that permits government to remove vested rights without compensation or grandfathering. If it applies in the case of this legal use then it becomes a precedent if upheld by a court.
We have a long line of court decisions affirming vested property rights and grandfathering, or, in the case of expropriation, requiring a compelling purpose and the payment of fair market compensation.
I would go further and say everyone should be concerned about holding the actions of government to the standard of what would be considered fair and just in a democratic society. I do not agree that this government action meets this standard.
Hence my point that every owner should be worried is an exaggeration. Tend to agree that for STR they overstepped on legal non-conforming, but i don’t buy the slippery slope argument at all for regular owners.
I also know of someone like that. If they had no intention of using it as a STR then the mistake was buying it in the first place when they could have gotten a condo without the STR premium instead.
Trans Canada (of which I’m a shareholder) took a hit when Biden cancelled Keystone XL. However they have more assets than that and I have many more assets other than TC. This is called regulatory risk. If you choose to put all your money in one asset that is subject to a lot of government regulation you are taking on a very high degree of regulatory risk.
And per your example, why would anyone buy a property that was priced for commercial use as their principal residence? Nobody should be taking on commercial risks on their own residence. Unless they had plans for future commercial use.
It’s none of my bee’s wax, but were they planning on living there or planning on the STR income to afford it? Buying property has risks but starting a business is much riskier. Especially if you require the business income to afford the property. I’m not saying I don’t feel for them but they did just about the riskiest thing they could have done with their financial future.
That would not have made the properties more available to long term renters or owner-occupiers, indeed it would have made them less available.
The reforms changing what can be built on a lot are separate measures from the STR legal use removal and cannot be conflated.
Someone who owns a Janion unit has lost a vested legal right they paid for and has zero benefit from the new multiplex possibilities. Someone who owns a lot has a new right but did not lose an existing one.
Every property owner should be concerned with the removal of vested property rights causing unexpected losses that could not be reasonably mitigated. Owning property is a very large investment for most people – the biggest one they will make.
I know a case of someone who bought a unit in Janion in 2021 with 5% down as a first-time homeowner at the top of their affordability level and could only resell at a loss right now that would set them back ten years and possibly push them into bankruptcy – which would not even remove the debt. There is always a risk of a drop in the market, but the drop in the Janion value is way beyond that.
No doubt STRs needed regulation, but people need security respecting existing legal uses of property so they can plan their lives.
I think if you cracked down on illegal ones the increase in demand for the legal ones would offset the increase to 5k.
And I question your court challenge assertion given the financial non-sense muncipalities already impose on development and business.
I guess the other option would have been to classify STVR as commericial properties and charge them commercial property tax rates that are almost 4x higher then residential, this would make sense as they are essentially the same as hotels.
I mean not really. I would argue most owners in BC are seeing a net expansion of property rights from the province’s reforms, not a restriction.
But someone operating in a legal non-conforming way on their property perhaps should be, especially if the use is something that is disliked by neighbours (any use with negative externalities)
Nothing, and quite possibly would have happened.
You effectively are, it’s just a loophole. If you have a legal non-conforming use but the city says you need to pay $1M/year to continue using it, then it’s a practical ban. So then it’s just a question of degree of reasonableness of the licensing fee.
$1500/year was already high but probably didn’t kill the business case for too many units. I suspect upping it to $5000/year would also have attracted a court challenge.
Agree with this approach. I hope those property owners win. Province was way too heavy handed in their approach creating large losses. Every property owner or potential property owner should be concerned.
Prior to the province legislation the City of Victoria had increased the licensing fee from $1,500 to $2,500. What would have prevented them from increasing it to $5,000?
The difference is you aren’t talking property rights away. For example, capital gains inclusion changes so more tax is payable that doesn’t infringe on property right.
I don’t see any functional difference between what they did and an effective ban using punitive licensing fees.
This was also feasible as they would have had a database of the licenced ones.
Or a million other better ideas than the stupid one they come up. Although, I will admit super popular. Politically extremely well executed.
Certainly will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. In my opinion, it is an attack on property rights which everyone should be concerned about.
There were a million different ways to tackle this problem. For example, go after illegal AirBnbs making the legal ones more lucrative due to less competition. Then increase licensing fees on the legal ones from $1,500 per year to $5,000 per year at municipal level. In Victoria that means 700 × $5,000 = $3.5 million. Let’s say a million to employ a few staff to do nothing at City Hall you have $2.5 million left over per year. Go to CMHC/BC Housing to borrow money at lower rates and build subsidized housing in Rock Bay/Burnside/George areas.
Instead we have a law suit, microsuits being offered for $1,800/month long term rent and the value of the units at Janion has dropped from 400k to 350k for 300 sq.ft., who is this actually helping (other than hotels).
Airbnb has also been banned in new construction for a long time it isn’t like new inventory was ever going to be added going forward. Existing legal inventory would have just become a small non-relevant % of housing units. A couple of larger projects approved is 700 units.
Agree that it’s a good one for the courts to test. While I support restricting STVRs in general in favour of longer term uses, undermining the expectation of legal non-conforming use doesn’t seem like a great move.
I think a better idea would have been to ban new STVR in those buildings but grandfather existing owners. It would kill the resale just the same but allow existing owners to keep operating if they like. The numbers would naturally dwindle over time
I think removing STR rights for legal units, instead of focusing on the many more illegal units, was harsh & also dumb, and so I understand the sentiment of suing the gov’t, but all that said, I don’t think this lawsuit has much of a chance. It’s not a realistic answer in my view.
Great analysis Barrister. Yes, US property rights are much stronger than Canada, but I hope that the BC STVR owners prevail with their case.
I believe that they are arguing that their properties were downzoned in that a permitted use (and indeed a permitted use that was actually being employed) was removed and that this has actually caused economic damage. In essence, this is analogous to expropriation occurring without any compensation being offered.
Ownership of property has traditionally been viewed in English Common law as a “bundle” of rights”. The one example that many people are familiar with is mineral rights which can be separate from the other rights on a parcel of property. Easements are another common set of divisible property rights.
At issue will be whether the province, which certainly has the legal right to change zoning can do so without any compensation to the landowner. It should be an interesting challenge for the courts. Unlike the US constitution there are no property rights protections.
Hawaii (and specifically Maui) very likely won’t be banning airbnb. They only plan to further crack down on illegal airbnb (to make them register and pay taxes), which is their current position as well. This position is confirmed clearly by the governor of Hawaii. Anyone interested can watch the governor explain (April 2024) that they aren’t cracking down on airbnb. (Hawaii governor https://youtu.be/EWqdNNUnoA4?si=SNH2IZ84rE5WueAg at 5:15 “if you are a short term rental, and pay your taxes you are fine”
BC could learn from places like Maui in how to tax vacant/stvr and other types of homes. Maui has an incredibly simple system, where they tax non-owner-occupied homes at higher tax rates than owner occupied. Very simple, and fully described in a few lines. They have different rates for owner occupied/ stvr/long term rent/part time owner/ https://www.mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/141482/2023-Tax-Rate they also have progressive rates that rise with home value.
They don’t add a complicated layer like BC of
——taxing foreigners or “satellite families” at higher rates
—— make payment be a separate process than property tax
——require everyone to make annual declarations online to restate their circumstances.
Lmao
It most definitely does. The question will be whether the public policy purpose justifies the infringement.
I’m not sure how this is in any way comparable.
Back in 1975 a new act was brought into force and specifically stated that “land shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason of the ALR designation”. Lands subject to the ALC were over two acres, had already been designated agricultural or with agr 1-4 potential, and were already being assessed as farmland. No previous subdivisions of farmland for, example, residential subdivisions, were rendered inoperable as a result. AKA vested rights were not impacted.
Does anyone know what “vested rights” means in this context?
From the TC article: “The property rights group said the new Short Term Rental Accommodations Act infringes on “vested rights.”
Did anyone successfully sue the province when the ALR was established? Apparently not, since it’s still there. That was a far bigger deal than the STR changes.
Of course not, because it wasn’t taxable when you took it out. But note that HPB repayments are independent of regular RRSP contributions and don’t affect their limits.
I think what you’re alluding to is that if you don’t meet the minimum HBP repayment in a given year it gets added to your taxable income. But that’s as it should be.
Formerly legal STR owners suing the province – https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/short-term-rental-unit-owners-file-lawsuit-against-province-and-city-of-victoria-8590100
Just beware re RRSP withdrawals for home purchases that when you go to pay it back the money contributed as a pay back of the loan isn’t a deduction. I took $25k out in 2015 and pay taxes each year because of this. $1,666 per year is taxed as it’s earmarked for the RRSP homebuyer program and not a regular RRSP contribution. Has varied each year depending on other factors. If you contributed an additional $1,666 to your RRSP per year it would even out but I haven’t been able to.
Not at all, since there are plenty of people with money in their RRSP already, while the FHSA is a brand new program. Or perhaps I should say a reboot of an old program, since there used to be something called a RHOSP which I used to buy my first house.
Why is that exactly? RRSP comes out ahead of TFSA if marginal rate at contribution exceeds marginal rate at withdrawl. There are also some fine points, such as no withholding tax on US dividends in an RRSP. And what you do with the tax refund is irrelevant to your net returns.
If you would have bought $25,000 of Microsoft in 2009, you would have made over 1500% on that money in a RRSP. That’s quite a penalty.
It’s about getting re-elected. They’re doing “something”, even if that something is nothing.
I bought in 2009 and I’m still paying it back according to schedule (i.e., the minimum amount each year). I think I’ll finally be done in two or three years!
I am beginning to suspect that real inflation is going to continue. The amount of new government spending and debt is a driving force to a large degree. I have to wonder what the point of thirty year mortgages for a limited number of buyers actually is at this stage?
Literally mortgaging your future…lol.. They needed to announce something to appear they doing something. The RRSP withdrawal is pretty irrelevant now with the FHSA and a person is foolish if they think of putting into RRSP before their TFSA… Unless they are using the tax refund from the RRSP to put in the TFSA. If a first time home buyer has the ability to top all 3 without a problem, well, they are probably at an income level that doesn’t need the assistance to buy. Really this a demographic chase in urban centres with the 30 amortization to get folks into condos. Tossing a bone to the highrise developers at the same time trying to capture a few votes from Mils and Zs.
Wasn’t the first time HB RRSP withdrawl $25,000 per person a few years ago which increased to $35K? And now they’re increasing it to $60K per person? Is that right? Anyone know a stat on how many first time buyers actually pay this back according schedule?
…With payments In Benjamin Franklin notes. Its the same thing In Shawnigan Lake, even though they are allowed, no one uses airbnb…Repeat bookings year after year.
Extending the amortization period is like throwing a life preserver with holes in it, to a drowning person.
We have a low snow pack this year, wonder if that effects hydro generation.
Local ones or Vancouver ones?
lol or this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb7onr0vaq0
160,000 condos in Hawaii. Anyone renting out for the last 10 years have regular guest every year and don’t need airbnb. Impossible to police.
Oprah Winfrey Owns Hawaii now. If your house burned down In Maui…She’ll give you a free pillow.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/oprah-winfrey-donation-pillows-nappies-hawaii-wildfires-maui-b1100030.html
That sounded ambiguous to me – does that mean you can make payments for 3 extra years, or are there 3 extra years before you have to start paying? The latter it appears:
Yup, don’t see rates coming down before the fall at this point. Every day I see agents posting on IG “market is heating up, bla bla bla,” but personally I see a very difficult market for the next three to six months. Affordability is poor which has sidelined a lot of buyers and a lot of sellers are still in the headspace of peak prices. It is going to be very low sales volumes until the fall (relative to other springs/summers). The deals that do get done will be a challenge for the most part. If I could revise my prediction on sales for 2024 I would lower it from 7000 to 6,600, a third consequitve slow year in terms of sales.
For sure, but not 5% GST. For example, if a two year old property is 500k a buyer may pay $510k gst included for brand new.
Nice to see another location considering banning airbnbs
https://www.sfgate.com/hawaii/article/hawaii-short-term-rental-vacation-bill-19382321.php
Sweet, hopefully we dodged the foolish increase to the CHMC million dollar limit. 30 year amortizations is less of a big deal. In other news today….Bonds…bonds…bonds…
Other changes today
Also intended to help out builders
Allowing first time buyers to purchase new housing at extended amortization periods takes away a life line for those buyers that may face challenges in paying their bills a year or two from now. It seems counter productive to qualifying at a higher rate. I have mixed feelings on whether this is prudent lending practices.
Interesting comment from Marko. Typically it is new housing that sets the price and older housing adapts to that pricing. But in soft markets the reverse happens as developers have to reduce prices to compete against the increased supply of housing that is less than five years old.
Most noticeable in a slowing condominium market as the supply of pre-owned condos of less than five years increases and the new projects have to adapt to increased competition from near new condos.
And that’s what seems to be happening in the condominium market this year as there is a lot more near new pre owned condos of less than five years in age on the market today than there has been for a very long time. That increase in near new pre-owned condominiums has been keeping new condo prices from increasing due to increased competition from near new pre-owned condos.
For the Victoria core there are about 68 new condos for sale on the real estate board compared to 92 condos built between 2019 to 2022. Enough to keep prices from rising but not enough to bring prices down. Let’s see if that mix changes as we get further into the Spring market.
The downside is when just about everyone is bidding the most they can qualify for, you’ll end up with people making the same payments at a higher sale price. It also makes lending more risky since the principal is being paid off more slowly.
Restricting the 30 year amort to 1st time buyers of new properties is intented to minimize this effect.
Don't forget langford townhouses
But why not just go to longer amortizations to lower the payments , where is the downside . Maybe time to move the goalposts
Agreed. It may do something to support prices in the (<$1m) condo market, which is most of the new home supply. I don’t like these changes because it’s just means FTB end up paying more for the same home.
I think many such buyers would already be choosing 30 year amorts since many SFH are >$1 mil now and thus mortgages must be uninsured which allows for 30 year.
“Very few” (Like I said). Which is why the impact would be negligible.
How many new SFHs are less than $1M?
For the SFH market, the 30 year amort option for FTB will have negligible impact IMO. Likely less than 200 new SFH are sold to FTB per year in Victoria and very few of those would have been insured (<$1m) anyway.
I think some will pay a small premium
Thanks Marko, that makes sense to me. I mentioned my aversion to new properties (based on my faulty knowledge) and my realtor just agreed with me. I think I could have used a little Marko in my life at that very moment. Appreciate the knowledge.
LMAO, you don’t actually own rentals do you?
30 year mortgages will drive prices higher in the market. More fuel on the fire. What would be the penalty to get out of one?
It is nothing like buying a new car. For example, if you have a two year old property priced at $500,000 there is no way a buyer is going to pay $500,000+gst for an equivalent brand new property; therefore, the developer has to price somewhere around 480k+gst to be successful in selling.
I have a really good real life example of this in Langford right now but my clients are making an offer on one of the subject properties so won’t post example for time being.
It’s not like you pay X + GST and the day after it is worth X and you’ve thrown away the GST.
You can already get 30 year amort on that though.
LMAO don’t talk about it, be about it 😉
Partial GST rebate for new homes purchased under $450k
PTT rebate for new homes purchased under $1.15M.
Now (well August) 30 year amorts.
Might be worth a look
I skimmed your comment, but thanks for being a dick as usual. One more for the mute list.
New homes only, first time buyers only. The impact will be too small to notice.
Reading comprehension on hhv is low.
Pretty impressed by council there, didn’t think this would get approved.
Disagree only certain segments, read again.
I think it’s for first time home buyers only.
In other (local) housing news, Esquimalt approved the 26 storey redevelopment at 900 Carlton Terr by a 5-2 margin.
Longer amortizations for only newly built homes? Where buyers must pay GST? It’s possible I’m an idiot (indeed, very possible) but in our house hunt, I’ve looked away from new builds because the GST sure feels like throwing a significant chunk of money away. If my feelings on buying brand new are true, then it seems the longer amort. could be a two pronged bad financial decision? I’m open to being wrong.
Longer amortization , is probably the only way to make homes more affordable , but it will juice the market
Feds helping out first time home buyers and builders with 30 year amort. on insured mortgage for newly built homes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses
Learned something new on HHV. Despicable. (and obviously not Deryk)
Haha….not to worry “Dad”. No offence taken.
If there is any prizes out there for being an “idiots” I would qualify from time to time.
Thank you just the same.
Well, I’m obviously the idiot in this case.
Apologies to you Deryk, and thank you for clarifying.
Thank those who have offered me kind support. I really appreciate that. (Certainly I’ve never heard of parenthesis being used for that reason.) I was merely trying to use shorthand to express my thoughts about something I find disturbing. The idea of corruption. ( I could be wrong on that though of course. . )
Anyway…as interest rates rise, it is something to think about. And it has been mentioned by Chase Banks as one of the reasons.
Thank you all again.
I would also like to point out that one of the most influential Jewish family’s and art collector in BC has funded my work for the biggest part of my career. I am a Scotsman and Scotsman and Jews have a reputation of getting along quite well:)
(Having said that, I do not support Israel’s actions in GAZA. but that topic is for another forum.)
I love Jewish people, as I love people from all nations.
It isn’t something I came up with. It is used by alt right groups on social media and I’ve never seen it used in any other context other than an antisemitic one.
I don’t know deryk at all. If he isn’t like that, then I apologize for raising it. Not trying to start anything here. I was just confused.
It has nothing to do about anything Jewish and Deryk is not at all like that. Where do people come up with something that stupid?
Nothing in any of Deryk’s prior posts over how many years now would suggest any vibe of this type.
Thank you for the kind words.
See you guys tomorrow after work.
Enjoy your evening.
I meant the triple parenthesis Max (well 3-1/2 in this case.) It’s an antisemitic thing, usually placed around a person’s name to signify they are Jewish.
Its just a bunch of bullshit that will fade away as always.
The inhabitants of this planet have been fearing the end times since the dawn of time Itself.
Ask Father time…
Not sure what you’re going for with this. Hopefully it isn’t what I think it is.
aka chickens gone wild!
I’m not sure what is what. When war with the Ukraine broke out I was disturbed. Now I have a sense of resignation about it. It doesn’t seem like a solvable problem and the West’s view is not at all how Russian and its allies view things. And poor Finland joining Nato with pressure to arm, but having live within spitting distance of Russia and turning back refugees. Makes RE discussions seem small potatoes – guess they are.
Source?
Interesting comments by the head of Chase bank recently.
He points out that the world wide weapons buildup will increase inflation and lead to higher interest rates. I believe he suggests 8% as likely.
I am convinced that our world politicians are up to their elbows in filthy corruption and the penny has dropped for them that wars and weapons sales and huge profits all go hand in hand with each other. Not for the benefit of taxpayers, but for those who deal in the weapons sales and know which companies will benefit when and where. Not to even mention straight out corruption of money going to key players who help all this happen. I am convinced that this is the case and is a major story.
According to many scholars, Russia would never attack a NATO country because it would be suicide. But that’s the very story being fed to taxpayers (and being swallowed I might add), who are getting stuck with picking up the costs of all these massively expensive weapons.
The bottom line…….increased inflation worldwide and higher interest rates. That’s essentially what Chase bank has said and it is no surprise to anyone who has followed international politics.
I am convinced that there is major corruption among our politicians and their friends.
I would challenge a good reporter to dig into and follow the trail of money. There is billions involved.
The taxpayers will pay the price in higher interest rates and higher taxes, and lower services.
Trudeau has just announced a ((((major))) addition to beefing up military weapons.
These are my views. It’s only how I feel. I get the stench of fowl corruption big time and it is going to leave Canada in ruins.
Sure. But they still cut back on what they are buying. Now It becomes cost effective buying.
Its a good Idea to use your CC when buying groceries, just for the rewards at shoppers drugmart.
Same thing goes for fuel fill ups…Optimum card rewards.
It basically covers all your toiletries at shoppers drugmart.
My Wife and I are very frugal Individuals. We have seen a recession or three.
We understand just how quickly shit can go down. It can go down very fast and completely blind side you!
We are like squirrels…Just collecting nuts as we go throughout this journey of life.
But we are doing very well…we are diligent, and we are very happy with all the nuts that we have collected…To me that’s all that matters. We also procreated…So that’s kind of cool. What else are we here for? To sell houses to each other?
Actually Max, food has an inelastic demand. Econ101.
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/20044/GCSE/Economics/Explain-why-food-is-price-inelastic/#
Grocers Make 1% profit on what they sell, Its a thin margin. The first thing people cut back on Is groceries.
Well, except for on food with the price fixing schemes through the dairy and poultry boards that work against the public trust and stop new competition within Canada from getting started and lobby to prevent imports that would decrease the cost food. People like easy explanations of the global market does it and greedy grocery store corporations. The truth is, if we were more exposed to the global food supply, our prices would come down on that CPI inflation measure. As well, if the feds announce the anticipated CMHC measures, it might contribute to the measure on housing costs. Also, inflationary pressures that are caused internally in Canada are our policies that encourage low productivity. Global does have an impact, but Canada doesn’t help itself very much where it can. Cheques for doing nothing don’t cause inflation alone, but they don’t help when combined with other poor command economy policy decisions.
I would bet we will see a total 2024 rate cut by 1%…Just In time for Christmas.
BoC is interested in the consumer price index and most consumer prices, housing notably excepted, are largely determined outside Canada. I would bet against an increase in June, unless there’s a large unexpected jump in CPI before then.
On the other hand a big increase in the deficit could move the bond markets regardless of what the BoC does.
Kristan, when it comes to physics on you tube, try Sabine Hossenfelder
There’s no such thing as a free lunch…Lawyer up for sure.
Franks right, they like moisture. The distance between the exterior cladding and the lawn or garden of the foundation perimeter should be at least 8″. They are contortionists. Fill any foundation cracks with Simpson two part epoxy, Its the best you can get.
https://www.strongtie.com/epoxyanchoringadhesives_adhesives/set-3g_adhesive/p/set-3g
This shit…
Here’s a question: is there an amount money that the feds can push out the door next week via the budget in an attempt to regain poll numbers that could cause the BoC to increase the rate in June?
Don’t gas the carpenter ants! They were here before you. Maybe offer them a cash settlement to leave. Best to call a lawyer.
Granted. My comment was overly snarky. Apologies Max and Frank.
Kristan,
Thanks for the detailed and helpful reply.
It’s been 40 years since my last college Physics course (pre-med, just scratched the surface), but I’ve recently got a second wind and have been enjoying lots of YouTube lectures and interviews on physics and specifically quantum mechanics. Amazing historical footage of Feynman, Peter Higgs, Einstein etc. and current experts explaining latest concepts.
I would think this leads to a greater interest among the general public in physics and quantum mechanics , and I wonder if you’re seeing that with students at university level?
Good luck with the ants, we’ve had on and off battles with them over the years, but it’s been a small issue and usually just a seasonal issue in the spring.
And great housing choice… I hope you have many happy years with your family in Strawberry Vale!
LMAO
Thanks totoro, you forgot to mention my twisted sense of humour.
Is it? Isn’t it the shelter value of that particular home ie. market rent?
Even if someone would have rented a one bedroom for $2000 if they did not own they can rent out their four bedroom for $4000/month.
I don’t think there is any other reasonable way to quantify the rental value of an asset.
Plus there is then the fact if it is your primary residence that the gains are tax free that is not accounted for in the numbers and I don’t know why you would inflation adjust the gains unless you do the same for your stock returns.
Max knows a lot more about construction than I ever will – super valuable.
Frank probably has a higher net worth from RE than almost anyone on this board. He did not get there without some life lessons and smart decisions.
I would be more concerned with the chocolate chip cookies caveat’s granny made for him in a house infested with carpenter ants.
Ouch, couple peoples’ week are now ruined….
Hard to quantify, typically the house that people end up buying are bigger and nicer than whatever they were renting before so it will never be an apples to apples comparison.
No doubt
My opinion is that it is too soon to start slowly reducing rates. We are just beginning to see the effects of the interest rate on the market.
It is necessary to re-introduce risk to the market and that means some home owners will become examples to prospective purchasers that prices do not always go up. A little bit of Darwinian economics to cull some of the herd of home owners.
It’s necessary to remove the excesses of the marketplace and start to return our marketplace to one that is predominantly characterized by local demand and less towards investors and out of town buyers. Returning the market to long term stability so that the renters of today will become the home owners of tomorrow.
And ignoring shelter value which is even more substantial.
My long-standing position has been they will err on the side of cutting late since they took so much heat for raising early. The divergence between US and Canada just makes this more likely
Ignoring costs which are of course substantial.
Single family average
1960: $8796
2023: $1,288,448
CAGR: 8.23%
Real CAGR: 4.31%
Condo average:
1978: $44,196
2023: $628,676
CAGR: 6.1%
Real CAGR: 2.7%
Regarding the ants, was there an addendum with the contract to remove any pests?
https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/legal/how-this-buried-oil-tank-came-back-to-haunt-former-homeowners-1004172655/
Thanks all! Super duper helpful.
Houses are like used cars , there’s always going to be shite that comes up and u just deal with it . I agree in a a hot market if u dither and are trying to find perfect , u lost out .
When Max and Frank are tag-teaming the comments I think we can all feel our IQ plummeting.
Thank you for the excellent post politely refuting “no-one understands how magnets work”.
Totoro makes a good point ” if the seller disclosed what they knew, you would not have bought the home or would have paid less for it”
That depends on the market at the time the home was purchased. When the market was hot it was common for purchasers to not obtain home inspections. If you had known that there was a prior infestation, would you have not bought the property or paid less for it when others were waiving building inspections altogether? In a market that is highly in favor of sellers a prospective purchaser has little to no room to negotiate.
In hindsight you might say that you would have paid less, but given the market at the time you bought your home that statement may not be supportable.
Often they aren’t that big a deal. The rural house I grew up in has had carpenter ants on and off for going on 50 years and is still standing strong with no extraordinary repairs beyond what you might expect of a house that age. Recent exterior work seems to have cut off the ingress.
Admittedly they are extremely gross and offputting.
+1, unfortunately. When I have clients buying in certain areas like Broadmead I just tell them every other house has or has had in the past a carpenter ant issue. When the market was slower I had some relatively large re-negotiations on Carolwood Dr post inspection and damage relating to carpenter ants. One house needed some serious work including new sill plates.
I think the question on the statement is something like, “Are you aware of any infestation or unrepaired damage by insects, rodents or bats?”
Agree.
The previous owners likely assumed the problem had been resolved and there was nothing to disclose.
In any case, there is no need to panic. Carpenter ants can cause damage, but often don’t. And if they do, it takes a long time.
They are not like termites, which we do have here.
I might be wrong, but doesn’t the standard MLS form also effectively focus just on “latent defects” the seller knew about, which are major things that make the property dangerous, unfit for habitation etc. ie. major stuff. Probably not carpenter ants?
But say it’s such a horrible infestation it is unfit for habitation – rare but I guess it could happen. Then take the case where you know the seller knew, as seller used the same pest control company and you can prove that. I still don’t think that translates into a winner. Seller would just say, yeah we noticed the ants so we did what any reasonable homeowner would do & got a company to wipe them out. Didn’t have any problems after we did that.
How would you ever really prove otherwise?
I think this falls into the category of things you can grumble about because life is unfair, but there’s no practical sense in trying to sue someone for it, because you probably would lose and it would just be a giant waste of time & money.
Now, the fact that the ants probably mean also water ingress is another issue, if the water ingress was so huge as to be a latent defect. This is what happened to a colleague of mine who bought a house. He found out effectively the house had leaky condo syndrome, and all of the exterior stucco had to be removed, some framing replaced, house had to be re-clad entirely, I think it cost like 3 or 400k. Apparently there was provable evidence the seller must have known, anyways, he sued everyone, the seller, seller’s agent I believe, the architect and the city (unclear to me what their real ‘fault’ was in this), hired a top-notch lawyer, and I think he recovered to his full satisfaction though I don’t know the details of that. I do know he had to float lots of expenses until everything was resolved and it took maybe 2 years.
In order to make a successful claim against a seller for a carpenter ant infestation you have to show:
you suffered damages due to the problem – for example, the defect affected the value of the home or you paid a cost to repair the problem
the damages existed at the time of possession
the seller was aware of the problem and failed to disclose it in writing
defects claimed were hidden in nature and you could not have known through your inspections
the defects in question were material, ie. if the seller disclosed what they knew, you would not have bought the home or would have paid less for it
Past infestations should probably have been disclosed, but not sure all the rest works to support what it would take to make a successful claim or, if it does, that it is worth the effort at this point.
I would be concerned about investigating for leaks/rot supporting the colony re. Frank’s comment.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2008/2008abqb298/2008abqb298.html
PS. Feynman Lectures – game changer for one of our kids re academic path
Way too complicated a topic for a short answer but the insurance coverage vacancy exception may apply after being away anywhere from 4-30 consecutive days.
Yep, the surprise will be when the BoC holds again in June.
Bank of Canada holds at 5%,
Kristan we’re in a similar situation. Carpenter ant hell, haha. I assumed we have no legal recourse (in our case we have no proof they knew, although I’m sure they must have) and haven’t bothered pursuing it.
Marko- One question. Are your rental properties held in a corporation?
You probably have more than a carpenter ant problem. Carpenter ants love damp conditions, there is probably a leak somewhere letting water into the area they infested.
Actually, about that house, here’s a question for the community. We largely love it, but there is one problem, namely a carpenter ant infestation that we are currently dealing with. (Just had the colony in the house gassed today.)
Anyway: the previous owners didn’t disclose the infestation when we bought the house, but they knew about it. In fact they used the same pest control quite recently and we have records of it. So here’s the question: is that (the fact that they didn’t disclose a known infestation) a big deal here, or just something to be expected? I’ve gotten conflicting answers so far..
Hi Patrick,
Thanks! 🙂 Indeed we bought a home in Strawberry Vale last Fall, for which we are very grateful. (I think I announced the news here at the time, along with many thanks to the HHV community..)
Right, of course there are assumptions and in physics nothing is sacrosanct. People still test for experimental violations of all sorts of things that are generally regarded as so reliable by physicists that you could bet your life on them; Lorentz invariance (in practice the claim that the speed of light is identical in all inertial references frames), CPT symmetry of the laws of physics (CPT = the combination of flipping the sign of charge (C), flipping a spatial direction (P), and reversing time (T)) which among other things implies that particles and antiparticles have the same mass, whether General Relativity governs gravitational physics near the event horizons of black holes, &c.
But the thing is, if you ask the question “why?” to the models physicists have developed like the Standard Model of particle physics, like “why does it have these fields and these symmetries?” or “why are we postulating quantum mechanics in the first place?”, then you are not quite asking a scientific question anymore. It’s as scientific a question as “should I cheat on my wife?” Scientific claims are falsifiable; so the real thing that physicists do when they claim that they have a good description of Nature, as in magnetism, is to obtain a theory that is both effective (correctly matches observable phenomena to current experimental precision) and predictive (predicts new things; good theories should know more than what you build them from). If a lab measures a deviation of the muon magnetic moment from its value predicted by the Standard Model (and there are hints, probably wrong, that this may be the case), then this means that said model is missing something. Perhaps something big, perhaps something minor, but that’s where we rely on our experimental colleagues for direction.
In the 20th century our field underwent a big psychological shift relative to the past, actually largely in part from Feynman, where we stopped worrying in large part about “why” one model might be more physically sensible than other, and instead measured success by whether or not we make good predictions and not wrong ones. Very pragmatic. For theorists this is usually summarized in the dictum of “shut up and calculate.” From that point of view the current understanding of magnetism is almost flawless. Again, no one can tell you “why” electrons have spin and thus a magnetic moment, why light waves involve oscillating magnetic fields and electric ones, in the standard theory of magnetism; however that theory matches observable phenomena to astonishing precision, giving confidence that we got it right.
Former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney warned that central banks may cut interest rates more slowly and by less than many expect, as monetary policy adjusts to a new era defined by structurally higher inflation.
Okay, what If a pipe bursts In your condo unit (that you own, but rent or lease) on the 6th floor and entirely floods out the lower 5 floors. They are living there (full time), but just went out for dinner for 4 hours?
Who’s Insurance premiums are going to do a moon shot here? Housing the tenants throughout the remediation process?
Just say’n.
Yes, if they are responsible.
For your property? For your physical asset?
I had an interesting lunch with a banker who asked the question as to what happens to the whole housing crisis if a new government reduces immigration down to a maximum of 200k a year and reduces student and work permits down to a fraction of what they are today.
more importantly what happens to prices in the housing markets after a few years.
Depends on the building, but you are correct on this point. Many buildings do have such a bylaw.
Many strata councils require that all owners /tenants do what is set out in the lease term I’ve provided. I actually lifted it from a requirement I was bound by as an owner of a strata unit and legally bound to hold a tenant to. You should check your bylaws.
I believe the story too, but I think the landlord was in the wrong imo. If the tenant did provide something to be considered formal notice at that time the landlord obviously withheld information that they would need to pay two last two months otherwise no way tenant is allowing showings to perspective tenants looking to start renting prior to end of fix-term lease.
They have tenant insurance. My insurer will sue theirs if any damage results and they’ll have to pay their deductible. If nothing happens it is what it is and I’m grateful. We show our tenants where the water shut-offs are and how to turn off the gas.
I believe him. I think there was a time where things were different and he had a lot at stake and motive to track it down. I wasn’t a landlord in 2006.
I do think that landlord should have just given a month back and been done with it.
Nowadays if a landlord signs a lease with a new tenant they’d be paying the damages if they can’t deliver a vacant unit – probably was some sort of right to this back then too.
Unfortunately, plenty of bad landlords also led to this swing. Do you think it was fair to use fixed term leases to jack up rents on tenants beyond the allowable limit? I know people that would email tenants two week prior to a 1-year lease ending along the lines of….so you have to vacate in two weeks, or you can agree to a 20% increase in rent.
So why would the existing tenant entertain the landlord bringing through potential tenants to re-rent the unit if they knew they had to pay until the end of the fix-term. Irrelevant of what the tenancy laws were can you see how that makes ZERO sense?
What tenant is going to cooperate with a landlord trying to screw them. As I said the landlord tried to exploit the situation at hand and the tenant said I don’t think so. Just think about this scenario, if the landlord wasn’t greedy they waive the last month from the existing tenant leaving, you pay them so they are still getting rent for the month and you move in. But no, landlord tried to double dip and you got screwed. Situation could have been easily resolved if landlord was reasonable.
I’ve had tenants break leases many times and I’ve never tried this double dipping non-sense. I’ve always been able to re-rent the unit (often at a higher amount) and I’ve let the tenant out of the lease early without penalty, including returning their damage deposit. ***practically speaking I execute this by having the existing tenant sign a mutual end to tenancy just before I sign off on the lease with the new tenant.
You are telling me you moved out of places, continued to pay rent, and the landlord re-rented your place while you continued to pay rent?
And If they don’t…What Is your recourse? Sue them?
Yeah right. You expect them to turn off the gas fireplace too? The onus Is on the property owner.
Most tenants would be afraid to perform any of the above mentioned tasks you consider to be negligent.
Turning the page of a book Is hard work for these guys.
What is your opinion on the story ReAddict had?
I’ve seen seven page (50+ term) tenancy addendums so yes you can add as much as you want; however, I prefer to keep mine to one page.
Practically speaking I am a little torn with your turn off clauses as I’ve seen so many stupid things unfold. For example, at the Promontory the building turned off water for repairs. A tenant came home and didn’t know water was turned off to the building and by accident left a faucet in the on position and left for the weekend. Later in the day the water was restored to the building and 6 units were flooded as a result. Tenant turning off water and someone coming in to check on the unit probably carries a higher risk of something dumb happening versus a spontaneous leak occurring while tenant is away.
Also the main water shutoffs in Canada are just absolute garbage design, usually hidden in a closet behind a panel. In Croatia, you typically have a nicely exposed knob/valve in a bathroom that is the main water shutoff.
Marko you can disbelieve what I said but this was 2006 not 2024. The rules re leases/fixed-term tenancies have changed a lot! There simply were no outs. I was shocked at the changes at the time when things did start to evolve. These things swing from one extreme to the other. You used to get a cheaper monthly rent for signing a one year or more lease because the landlord knew he had 12 months plus of stable rental income with no turnover. 100% payment for the year versus the possibility if you agree to month to month you could end up with turnover and a month or two with zero payments. As I was a renter back then I signed a few and trust me it’s exactly as Frank said you pay the piper and did your move out inspection turned over the keys, hopefully got your damage deposit back and the next day the landlord could rent it again. Talk to someone in real estate who is a decade or more older than you and they will remember how we’ve swung so far from landlord centric to tenant centric.
This is my understanding:
Tenant leaves early on fixed term lease. They must keep paying BUT landlord must readvertise asap and use best efforts to replace tenant. If the rent is lower the departing tenant pays the difference for the duration of their lease term. In our market this means that leaving a lease is relatively low risk. This has been the law for a long time. It is called the duty to mitigate. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/residential-tenancies/policy-guidelines/gl03.pdf#:~:text=In%20all%20cases%2C%20the%20landlord%20must%20do%20whatever,a%20reasonable%20amount%20of%20rent%20in%20the%20circumstances
I require my tenants to obtain and show me tenant insurance. It is a lease term. It is largely for their benefit. In the case of, example, a fire, if they are found to have contributed to this my insurer will sue them personally if they don’t have insurance. Not something I want to see them experience after they’ve lost everything. It happened to someone I know.
You can most def require the tenant to manage absences. Make it a lease term. Mine states, “the Tenant must inform the Landlord before taking an of more than seven days and provide a contact person;…. the Tenant is responsible for water damage arising from their suite due to negligence or failure to have the suite inspected during extended vacations/absences. The tenant agrees to turn off water to the laundry, kitchen and toilets during extended absences.”
Barrister-And you’re a lawyer. Complicated shite.
Head hurts reading some of this.
…Is It?
And liability. Which would cover my property.
Well they aren’t going to insure your property for you. Do you think you shouldn’t bear any risk? It’s an investment like any other.
You would have to try and argue that it is a material term. But I agree, it’s probably pointless. People are allowed to go on vacation, and if they pay the rent and did adult things like turned off all the burners and locked the doors, who cares.
Tenant insurance covers their contents and possessions. More importantly it also provides liability insurance, same as automobile insurance. Like I said though, you can’t get blood out of a stone.
For contents.
Real life thought….what are you going to do if they don’t notify you that they went to Europe for two months? Try to evict them? Good luck with that.
How would you find out in the first place that they didn’t notify you? You can’t force the tenant to be present if you are doing a routine inspection of the unit.
You can require tenants to carry insurance.
Why would the tenant’s insurance cover a pipe bursting? That’s on you. You own the property, you absorb that risk.
Tenants don’t have to carry any Insurance at all. Property owners do!
Unfortunately, tenants rarely carry insurance, unless it is stipulated in the lease agreement. Which they could cancel at any time. If the pipe breaks and causes hundreds of thousands of dollars damage, if your insurance company denies the claim, you’re on the hook. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
Are you sure about that? I don’t think that Is correct. Every time they turn the burner on…someone has to come check It out?
The onus Is on the property owner.
Also, if the tenant did something dumb like they went away and left a burner on that caused a fire, obviously they would be liable notwithstanding whether there was a term in the agreement about having someone check up on the property.
Landlords are exiting the game because tenants aren’t on the hook for a pipe randomly exploding?
If you included a term in a tenancy agreement that a tenant has to arrange to have someone check on the property every three days, I think that would likely be unenforceable.
You probably could include a term in the tenancy agreement that the tenant must notify the landlord if they are going to be away for longer than 14 days or something.
I agree 100% with you! The risk Is just way too high.
I’m discussing insurance, since I’m dealing with a loss of one of my properties.
And that’s why landlords are exiting the game and renters are going to be SOL.
We are discussing tenancy laws, not insurance. Maybe it is best you join the muted echo chamber.
Sixth floor condo unit, pipe bursts flooding the five stories below. Its the owners problem…Not the tenants.
I see, so the tenancy act is setup to be in-line with insurance policies.
My friends always hire a house sitter to check on their house when they are away for an extended period of time. Phone your broker.
Marko- Read your insurance policies carefully. They look for any excuse to deny a claim.
Frank, you aren’t answering any of my questions I have for you, let’s review
how would a “good lease” determine when a tenant has vacated and when you can voluntarily re-claim the unit even thought they are paying rent?
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housing-and-tenancy/residential-tenancies/forms/rtb1.pdf
“The tenant must maintain reasonable health, cleanliness and sanitary standards throughout the rental unit and the other residential property to which the tenant has access. The tenant must take the necessary steps to repair damage to the residential property caused by the actions or neglect of the tenant or a person permitted on the residential property by the tenant. The tenant is not responsible for reasonable wear and tear to the residential property.”
Where does it stipulate someone has to check on a property every 2 or 3 days?
Exactly.
Even If I was buying a sky box In the core to rent/lease out tomorrow. I would have a lawyer draw up the entire rental agreement. The onus Is on the property owner…Including broken pipes.
If the renter does not meet the requirements of the lease, ie. maintain the property, have someone check the premises every 2 or 3 days, etc.. they could be liable for any damage. Broken pipes, break ins, etc… If a tenant wants to go on an extended vacation, they are responsible to put in place someone to check on the property as stipulated by the lease to satisfy terms of the owner’s insurance policy. Like I said, leaving a property (especially a house) vacant for an extended time could void your insurance. This is what I was referring to earlier. Renters are creating situations that could cause the owner to suffer a huge loss. You can’t get blood out of a stone, so good luck suing the tenant.
Frank, the game has changed…bigly!
…and how would a “good lease” determine when a tenant has vacated and when you can voluntarily re-claim the unit even thought they are paying rent?
Honestly, I can’t believe I am wasting braincells on this non-sense.
Right…..I am going to write into the lease that the tenant must occupy the unit at all times, lol.
Perhaps I should get rid of my navy officer tenants that spend months at sea, them leaving my condos vacant keeps me up at night.
That’s old school.
What If the tenant has no Intention of vacating your residential property, and just want’s to stay?
Beyond having an addendum to the tenancy agreement that notes they have to cut the grass, or similar, under what grounds are you suing them?
Depends what’s in the lease agreement. A good lease would protect the owner.
How is that my problem as the tenant?
You are telling me if I sign a 12 month lease on a condo and I leave 4 months into the lease, but continue making rent payments, that I’ve voluntarily returned the property to the owner?
I had a tenant lease my house a few years ago because they were having a house built in Uplands. They had listed their house they were living in but it didn’t sell. My house sat vacant for months. I wasn’t happy. If the place had gone up in flames, my insurance would be void. I also could have been hit with the spec tax. They eventually sold their house and moved in several months later. I guess I could have sued them for not taking care of the property. Good luck with that.
For starters, if a tenant vacates your residential property and leaves it empty, you’re probably going to pay the spec tax because the house is empty. Secondly, your insurance company will have to be notified and you will be charged a premium for having it vacant. They may only cover you for a few months. If a tenant decides to leave early, they are still responsible for the lease, and have voluntarily returned the property to the owner. If they want, they should negotiate for a buyout of the lease to reduce their liability.
Yeah, If common sense prevailed…Like It used to.
I’ve done a few commercial leases on Keating Cross and while I am not an expert matter on such if my clients that leases a warehouse vacates the warehouse how does the landlord have a right to re-rent it if my client continues to pay every month? That makes no sense. There is nothing in the lease that says he or she must operate a business within the structure during the course of the lease.
I think people are confusing two different things
Vacating and continuing to pay the rent (you can’t just go in a re-rent because it is vacant).
Vacating and not paying rent
There is nothing that prevents me from renting a condo or a commercial property and leaving it vacant, as a tenant, that I know of? (beyond specific agreements that you’ll start a restaurant in that space, etc.)
and btw you do actual owe a tenant leaving early the duty to minimize damages.
Maybe commercial leases are different. Prior to my buying my commercial property, the tenants on the second floor (I was on the first floor) decided to leave a year before their lease was up and paid the remainder of the lease. The owner could rent the space out the day after they left. You owe a tenant leaving early nothing.
Let’s use some common sense here, no tenant is willingly going to give notice on a fixed-term lease if they have to pay to the last day and if such is the case why would they let the landlord re-rent it within the fixed-term lease?
They probably emailed the landlord with “hey we are going back to UK early” and landlord tried to exploit the situation by not telling them they would have to pay until the end and trying to double dip by renting it to you as well.
I can understand the landlord trying to rent to you before end of fix-term lease if the tenant(s) had abandoned or vacated the premises (and were NOT paying rent) but the landlord straight up tried to double dip and I can see why the tenants were upset. I’ve been a landlord since 2011 and an overarching concept has always been (and was probably around in 2006) that a landlord must do whatever to minimize damages or loss and in this scenario the landlord tried to gain, not minimize.
If the landlord was even somewhat reasonable (waived their last month of rent and collected rent from you so no damages) this situation would have been averted.
As a business person/landlord I typically lean towards the landlord side of things, but not in this circumstance. Landlord got greedy, you got screwed.
“squatters”
You can’t call them that anymore…Even If they stop paying the rent. Hire a lawyer months before you list.
The lawyer will negotiate with the tenant, pay them what they want, sign a bunch of shit making It legal. Now Its legal…Now you can list.
You don’t just give them a bunch of cash for the keys…You lawyer up.
If one was able to get tenant turnover at the right time maybe. I believe I was getting 4k around that time when I took on new tenants, and I also included internet in that price.
In your law firm example , they can only do that if both parties are fully informed and agree in writing to waive the potential conflict. This would involve the law firm describing the details of Chinese wall in place.
Of course this isn’t a law firm case. But applying it to this BC case, the applicants should have been told if it’s true that the same company adjudicating the program was helping and soliciting some applicants with their applications. I’m skeptical if those allegations are all true, because it sounds outrageous as alleged.
.
Marko, we looked up the rules at the time and it was entirely legit. If you had a fixed-term lease for one year, and gave notice you were leaving early, you were responsible for paying the rent for the entirety of the lease regardless if you gave an early notice to end fixed-term tenancy, breaking the lease. They were leaving the country and originally giving up the keys and so on. It was only through conversation somehow that they became aware we were renting one month after they left, not two. Once vacating the rental, It was supposed to be then up to the landlord to do what they want with their property, but your lease contract is fulfilled. There was no, but if the landlord then tried in good faith to rent it and did so, you weren’t any longer responsible, it was cut and dried back when a fixed-term lease meant something. Yes, maybe the landlord could have handled it differently and just refunded the disgruntled tenants one month of the rent, to pacify them, but I just think she was out of her depth at the prospect of “squatters” in her single family investment property on Arbutus a stone’s throw from ten mile point. Maybe it was greed, I don’t know.
Nope, no sarcasm.
What about the greedy landlord that was trying to double dip? I don’t understand how the landlord was even renting the home to you without a mutually signed end to tenancy with the tenant that was leaving early? You can’t just rent a place out that is under a lease because tenant says they are leaving, they are still entitled to possession especially if you are forcing them to pay until end of lease.
The way I read the story landlord greed was the primary issue and tenant “rage” a secondary consequence of the greed. Tenant actually did nothing wrong and simply enforced the lease agreement in response to the landlord enforcing the lease agremeent.
You never know what even the most “normal” tenant is capable of when they are set off. When I moved back to Victoria in July, 2006 we rented a nice family home for the beginning of the following month in Cadboro Bay where my then husband grew up. We were in a vacation rental for one month when we arrived. When looking at the place for the first time we saw the wife of the couple who had rented it, she said hello with a lovely British accent, and chatted for a bit with us. She then just went outside to sit in the sun while we viewed the home. I’d have said you couldn’t have found a more likeable, mature tenant.
We liked it, did all the paperwork, paid our deposit and something like a week before we were supposed to take possession the landlord called to tell us the tenants were upset because they were breaking their lease a month or two early and still had to pay the rent for the time until their lease expired (RTB rules at the time, so two months they wouldn’t be living there as they were going back to the UK. We would have been renting one month into that time, (and hence the landlord was being paid twice for the same month) so they were so pissed off they decided to have the father or father in law squat in the house so we couldn’t move in, because they were paying rent for it basically, and not turn in the keys until the very last day of their lease.
The landlord/owner had a child going away to college and was just flabbergasted as to what to do so said the whole thing is off, I’ll rent it later on in September when I’m back and they are all gone. This totally screwed us as we had furniture arriving from California at the first of the month and no where for it or us to go, and we needed to land somewhere so we could get two children enrolled in school. Luckily we found another vacation rental for the next month (and the owner took pity on us after hearing our story and cut $500 off the rent). Our furniture went into storage and when we found a completely different place in Cordova Bay it was loaded onto a truck the night before the move a month later, and the truck was stolen overnight, and we lost everything we owned except for what we had with us.
I do blame that couple for the loss of all of our belongings. It never would have happened if we had that house the day our large moving truck arrived, as we saw it at the airport where we had to go to clear customs for everything. It would have just driven straight to the house and unloaded. That’s tenant rage for you! They certainly weren’t thinking of us, the future tenants with a family who were out of a home.
Correct. Actual rents above 5k in 2023, less in 2018. However, over the period total income covered expenses and principal paydown as indicated.
Also correct. RSP room was deferred and used in year of sale.
I really, really hope they leave without Issue…
I just watched a youtube video from John Pasalis in Toronto, Ontario talking about how an owner who was selling offered their tenant $25,000 cash for keys to leave in two months so the buyer who was offering on their home could be assured they could have vacant possession, and the tenant said no, but give me $50K and I will. The owner landlord said no. the deal went through and at the end of the two months the tenant only got the one month of free rent rather than 25K and left just fine! Crazy!
If you are renting to a tenant(s) In your SFH primary residence…Shit just got real. Who knows what they are capable of.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not…..
Oh ya, good thing the money didn’t go out… The program should be scrapped because it’s a giant waste that accomplishes nothing except good eco-vibes for people pretending to do something.
I think the grant they administer and the grant they offered to write are two actually different ones, so similar to a large law firm working on opposing sides of the table in relation to the same client on different cases with firewalls in place. My personal take is that thank goodness my tax dollars not being wasted on this edison motors…. they seem like your typical EV pipedream/scam that has popped up numerous times in the past couple years.
Since BC scandals and corruption came up the other day, there appears to be another good one brewing….
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/concerns-about-alleged-kickback-scheme-leads-to-investigation-of-cleanbc-grants-1.6839122
So, you will probably get the grant we administer, if you hire us to handle your application, that we submit to ourselves and you will be approved for the grant. All you have to do is pay us 20% of the grant money you get in the end. Any mob or union boss would definitely love that kind of deal…. Lol
You are not getting 5k a month in 2018 with a 800k house even with an up and down suite, first hand experience on more than one property.
Seems a little light on the capital gains.
If they have their own separate meter and stop paying the bill. BC Hydro will shutoff the smart meter remotely. Water, No.
The property owner would have to pay the BC Hydro bill In full, to turn the smart meter back on remotely.
Patrick, you’re hilarious. Time to go, I’ll leave the 24/7 montoring of this site to you.
Scarcity is created – it’s not inevitable. There’s enough of land and resources for every single person here to have basic needs met. The problem is that over a long period of time more and more is siphoned up and away from the many to fewer and fewer. Eventually it will lead to revolt – people don’t take their own demise lying down flat. I prefer more government intervention but I’m afraid of too much. Still a basic standard for everyone seems both fair and achievable.
In Victoria it’s more like 7% long term – 6.8% per year over the last 36 years. That’s on the entire value of the house. So the return on the down payment is 5X that.
When renting to a tenant, you really have no idea what baggage they may bring with them. A boyfriend who perpetually works on his 1963 Impala in the driveway. The cousin from Saskatchewan who plays the accordion at 1:00am. Their 30 something son who lost his job because he was always high on marijuana. When you give up control of your property, anything is possible nowadays.
Totoro, your aware of someone who bought a property in 2018 and sold it in 2024 and you know all their personal financial details, lol.
160K of apple bought in 2018 is now worth 640K, assume jointly owned taxes owed may be around 150K so almost 500K after tax or around 20% annually (after taxes), they may have been leverage 2 to 1 so return may have been around 35% annually, lol. I didnt cherry pick I just picked the largest company by stock value on the Nasdaq. And again you didnt have deal with tenants, real estate agents, lawyers etc..
Patrick I can only see the last 30 years on Teranet and average rate of return on real estate in Victoria looks like just over 5%, of course thats before renovations etc… Is that long enough for you?
Exactly. Purpose-built secure rentals/coops with rents geared to incomes need to be available to median income earners too. Many coops do have income qualifications that result in people who are below median not qualifying.
Municipal, federal, and provincially owned lands might be acquired or existing lands used as part of this. I don’t think there is a way without initial subsidies. Seems to me the buildings should be able to be maintained on fees, but not built unless no interest financing is used maybe. Over time the underlying land values would increase and if owned by government could provide some return later on down the line.
There’s too many median income people to help. Can’t subsidize everyone to buy a home. Government should help poor people with housing. But if you’ve got some ideas on how to build co-ops for median incomes without big government subsidies, I’m all for it.
Actually it is not just “poor people” who cannot afford to buy and need need secure rentals geared to income. It is median income earners and some single people earning more than median. Coops could fill this gap.
It is an actual example I am aware of but not mine. I am also personally aware of someone who bought in Langford in 2021 at peak and is cash flow negative on rent and trying to hold through a 10% drop in value.
Not accounting for principal pay down paid by rental income. Over six years this adds 100k to the return which adds 9% to the return each year bringing the number in this example.
Is this extreme? It is what it was and seems fairly normal to me to avoid the CMHC fees.
Yes, this higher than average. I would agree that over the same period of time other properties generally appreciated less than this. If we keep it at 40% you’d be about a 1,120,000 sale price and redo all the calculations. Less 50k for capital gains and plus 100k for principal paydown and your return is 370,000.
So 22% on your money after tax per year instead of 27.43%.
I guess if you put your 160k in Apple you would have done better, although I’m not sure how that works out after taxes.
However turning 160k into 370k after tax is an overall return of 270%, so you beat the Nasdaq by quite a bit while paying yourself a management fee to compensate for the time.
The housing crisis is more than subsidized housing for poor people. Sure low income need not for profit subsidized government housing. But the housing crisis is a shortage of all housing, and for profit housing is most of what is needed.
Thankfully we have for profit companies like starlight building mega towers with 1,500 units in Victoria – Bravo!
Hey if people want to subsidize renters by buying properties and bleeding cash every month, I’m fine with that.
If it was a broad-based relaxation then yes, but
1. Lots of people already have 30 year amorts for uninsured mortgages
2. What I’ve seen is that it would be targeted at first time buyers, not for everyone.
So small increment on demand, but not enough to see it beyond the noise I would bet.
I support both. Yes to allowing people to put in suites/garden suites but bigger multiplexes and/or townhouses (especially fee-simple ones which I love) are the better form and I think it’s key that cities design their policies to allow multiple lots to be put together under SSMU.
You are changing the dialogue. Disingenuous at best.
The point I was responding to was your statement “if you want to invest in RE just invest in a REIT they use leverage too and it is no work”.
All but 80 at market rates. Not exactly a social enterprise or COOP funding and REITS are not the only source of private equity for this. These are built on a for profit basis.
Starlight has a long history of buying apartment buildings, kicking out residents paying low rents, renovating, and resetting at market rate or just straight up raising rents. And they’ve stopped paying dividends due to mortgage rate increases.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2021/12/09/east-york-gowan-tenants-rent-increase-starlight/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rent-strike-eviction-toronto-1.6882461
If you want to build lots of subsidized and coop housing they cannot be built on a for profit basis. Starlight or any for private for profit REIT is not going to build and/or own and operate these.
A guy who complains about cherry picking, and then uses Apple as his stock example.
FYI, Victoria SFH prices are up 10X since 1988 – there are “cherries” everywhere along the path to the current prices. People (boomers) who put 20% down in 1988 were leveraged 5X so their return on the down payment is more like 50X.
With returns like that, it’s hard to pick a period of time that isn’t “cherry picking”. That’s why boomers are a happy bunch. https://www.vreb.org/media/attachments/view/doc/2023_historic_summary_of_single_family_detached_sales_by_year/pdf/2023_historic_summary_of_single_family_detached_sales_by_year.pdf
Totoro was that a property you personally bought and sold?
Real estate prices in Victoria over that period which was an exceptional period were up 40% on Teranet not 63% which you have quoted in this example. You’ve used the extreme example of only 20% down also, you sound like Patrick cherry picking exceptional periods of time to make your case.
I’ll play along, the Nasdaq was up 100% over that time and Apple 400% for comparisons, and you didn’t have to deal with tenants!
REITS are (along with other private sector investment funds) a major way that we get the “purpose built rentals” funded to be built, and are a major part of the solution to the housing crisis. This may be obvious to some, but perhaps not to you because you said that it is “silly to expect” that the private sector will be building purpose built rentals.
Here’s what you said: Totoro: “Again, the solution is way more purpose built rentals and coops imo which leads to an increase in the vacancy rate. Coops seem better as it includes an ownership component. The private market is never going to provide this and it silly to expect it to.”
You’ve been telling us “the solution is way more purpose built rentals and coops”, and you’re right. Well REITS and similar private investments from RE companies (joint ventures, managed accounts, closed end funds etc.) are a way to actually help make this happen, instead of just “wishing” for it.
For example, one company starlight investments is building Harris Green, with 1,500 units in Victoria , most are dedicated to rentals. They have a publicly traded reit and other investment types. But the point is they are funding Harris Green with private investors and pension funds, despite you announcing that the “private market is never going to provide this”. Who do you think is funding Harris Green.. it’s not the government!
Does anyone else think that taking land plots designed for SFHs and cramming tons of income and garden suites into them is stupid? You guys know I’m for high density but that seems like a dumb way to do it. Maybe it’s what we have to do given that the land is already cut up stupidly but the enticing parts of missing middle for me were townhouses that actually made full use of a plot. Things like New York / London / Montreal style brownstones. Or if you could redevelop a whole block, do something like Barcelona’s mixed use blocks.
Incorrect. The reason being that you have to file tax returns every year and you need to keep track of expenses as deductions from income.
You can charge a management fee equal to 10% of the rental income and many do if the self-manage a rental. You must then also claim this income on your return.
As a result you’ll know fairly accurately each year what your ROI is based on initial purchase price vs. estimated sale price less expenses plus or minus net rental income which accounts for all expenses and your time.
Ex.
Home purchased in 2018 for 800k with 160k down and a net of expense sold value of 1.3 million in 2024. Net is approx. 500k less capital gains tax of 75k for a gain of 425k on 160k over six years plus mortgage paydown amount of 100k. Total gain is 525 in 6 years.
Assume 5k/month rent pays for all expenses including mortgage paydown based on lower rate mortgages available in 2018 and this includes your time to manage. If it didn’t track the losses and deduct from gain before calculating ROI.
Gain of 525k after tax on 160k over 6 years – 27.43% annualized.
This is why leveraged RE is better than REITs but only if the house appreciates. Depreciation greatly magnifies the losses as well.
Imagine someone buying the same home today for 1.3 and 20% down with the same rents of 5k/month. If prices drop 10% in 2025 and they have to sell they will lose 130k on 260k plus they are at least 10k negative on rent vs. expenses due to the bigger mortgage at higher rates. Overall ROI in a year is -54% not accounting for the costs to sell.
Fast way to lose 140k.
I do know people who bought in 2021 who are in this situation and renting out their home at a loss each month instead of selling it for a big loss. Not a low stress position to be in.
REIT index returns have been less then steller with a total annual return of less then 1% annually over the last 5 years (including distributions) and less then 5% annually over the past 10 years.
Also, when people calculate their return on buying investment properties they very often forget to calculate all the actual costs like mainentance and renovations, real estate fees, land transfer taxes, property taxes, insurance etc… and most importantly their own time, if they did the returns would look much less then they think.
They are not any sort of comparable substitute for owning real estate personally.
They are no work though, but you would be leaps and bounds ahead of a REIT if you had bought RE in Victoria instead 10 years ago with 20% down. And this will probably continue to apply going forward if you can hold through a downturn/flat market.
Don’t forget that with REITs you pay full freight for management and overhead with no control or ability to make strategic decisions or improvements. So what that REITs borrow money – they do so at commercial rates like any business listed on the stock market does.
Interesting. I wonder what portion of those are lodged by landlords (problem tenants) vs by tenants (problem landlords). It’s been ages since I have been a renter in B.C. but from my university days I remember so many stories of landlords pocketing damage deposits for no reason. Figuring correctly that most students wouldn’t lodge a complaint.
The rental market for houses is a strange one to figure out. Mostly because there is no reliable data base available and if you look at Craigslist the rents are all over the place for houses.
My opinion is that the rental market is our weakest market as it comprised mostly of a highly mobile workforce. Things get too expensive in Victoria and next month they are living and working in Alberta. So when I see data that shows we are having a net interprovincial loss of youth I can imagine a higher vacancy rate in Victoria.
As I said I am not selling any of my rental properties anytime soon. I might change my strategy again thought, I went away from furnished long term rentals recently but I think that next pre-sale I have completing I am going to furnish as I typically get much better turnover (1 to 2 years max) on my furnished units and turnover is important when the government is piling on non-sense. Until they bring in rent caps between tenants (I am not convinced this isn’t on the table) then turnover won’t help either, then I’ll have to give every single tenant an increase every year (which I’ve never done in my life).
That being said after this last pre-sale completes just going to invest into dividend stocks, the tax advantage alone is huge over rental properties.
I think the biggest risk is going to be renting a SFH going forward and the tenants becoming “established” and not wanting to leave. When you are renting studios and one bedrooms like I am tenants have plenty of alternative options to go to especially if tenant is getting two months’ free rent. At that point not much incentive to fight it.
That being said personally I wouldn’t sell with a tenant in place, would just wait for a vacancy and unload that unit.
I worked with way too many sellers in my career where they told the tenants it was a long term situation and then changed their mind and decided to sell and I am stuck dealing with a very unhappy tenant. Hence, purpose built rentals are really important to provide such long term rental security if that is something the tenant wants.
I’m curious about this comment Leo:
Why would they not? Surely extended amortizations mean increased borrowing capacity for the same monthly payment. And we know the effect increased borrowing capacity has on demand…
There is no appeal process. There are narrow grounds for review in the RTA, and there is judicial review in the BC Supreme Court. I don’t know how long it (typically) takes to go through judicial review.
Well no. A rental contract gives the renter the right to possess the property as long as the conditions of the rental are met. The owner cannot change this unilaterally.
What differentiates ownership from renting is that the owner has the equity interest in the property and has the right to sell it or use it as a security for a loan.
REITS are a good way to invest in rental real estate without any hassles. There are high quality residential REITS paying 5-6%+ especially in the USA.
—- Some people forget that an investment in REITS gets leveraged by the REIT. When they issue new units, they end up borrowing more than that to buy more rental properties.
—- And so you get exposure to the leveraged investment, though you don’t have any personal loan liability like you do on a personally owned propriety. All you can lose is the reit shares can go to $0.
——One thing that some mom n pop landlords forget to include in the comparison of investments is the cost of their time that they spend self-managing the rental.
—— And also the unexpected one time costs (new roof etc) that come up. For example, this 4 month notice rule is an unexpected cost as they might need to pay cash for keys or sell the home for less.
Assuming you want to stay invested in RE… REITS make the most sense for older landlords who value their time more than the extra money they might see from owning and managing a rental.
Does anyone have an idea how long it takes to get a hearing date for Landlord and tenant eviction hearings and if there is an appeal process and the time it takes to finish that?
I don’t think the level of indebtedness required to invest in real estate is incentivizing anyone. I can see flippers still wanting to turn a profit on distressed properties, but that is also being discouraged. Small landlords, flippers, all played their part in the market. I seriously doubt they had any negative effect on the housing crisis. In fact, if they decide not to participate, things will only get worse.
I think everyone can agree that investors will still buy in to properties on a cash negative basis because they believe that overall price increases will beat market returns over the long-run. Trudeau certainly seems to be doing his bit to help out in that regard, and the banks seem pretty willing to partake in indebting poor schmucks who for some reason want to have families and work three jobs.
Such an annoying sentiment.
I as a renter certainly knew I was getting a set price for accommodation and not an interest in an asset. Nor did I feel entitled to more than shelter for the price I paid – or even want the real risk of losing money or paying actual costs through higher rates, dropping prices, special assessments, major repairs and increased taxation.
This is like saying that I should be entitled to shares in a car company equal to the profit the car company made when I buy a car. As if there is zero value in the commodity itself and being a consumer entitles me to ownership in the parent company without any of the stress , risk, or oversight of being an actual owner.
The RTB saw a 10% increase in applications in 2023. May have been a corresponding increase in units, but I doubt it.
The risks of being a landlord certainly have increased with changes to the RTB. No doubt about this.
I think that the narrative around greedy landlords plus higher home prices has decreased the goodwill from tenants in general. I’m not sure that the overall % of really bad actors has increased.
Again, the solution is way more purpose built rentals and coops imo which leads to an increase in the vacancy rate. Coops seem better as it includes an ownership component.
The private market is never going to provide this and it silly to expect it to.
Frank I think you might be right. There was an article on cnn or bbc about how people in Ibiza can no longer afford rents and so the number of people living out of their cars has ballooned. It seems to be somewhat universal. In France there were parking lots on the outskirts of town that people could live in in their motorhomes. Seems like there’s a doubling down on the divide. Maybe not here. Maybe the legislation is good and we will be able to fight back. But, not without major govt injection of funds to create supply.
Caveat: I am pointing out that there is a new mindset amongst certain factions that seems to becoming more prevalent. I dont believe that there is a statistical chart for this.
My basic premise is that fewer people will be wanting to get into the rental business and the essential space we are so short on will eventually dry up. The remaining rental supply will get more expensive and there will be more people living in parking lots. That’s my view of the future.
Barrister turns pinko!
I am not the one claiming that there is a new normal, so I am not looking for statistics to prove it.
However if you are interested I am sure that the RTB keeps statistics on disputes and other metrics that would relate to problem tenants (and obviously problem landlords).
As far as paying people to leave I doubt that is going to show up anywhere. Paying a tenant to leave faster than they legally have to seems OK to me. Paying a tenant because you are worried they will trash the place and “never” leave is obviously not OK.
That’s one of the larger issues i think. There seems to be a blurring of the line between owning and renting. I mean, the main thing that differentiates ownership from renting is the ability to control possession, right? Tenants don’t have that.
So Caveat where might one get statistics as to the rate of problem tenants? I am not even sure that you can call them a problem tenant if they are simply demanding key money to move out when you sell their home. Should they not get a part of the profits since they have been paying for a part of the mortgage?
Frank – so you mean because of the drug epidemic? That makes some sense I guess.
I’m generally pretty laid back but some things just really piss me off. One of them is someone feeling entitled to a windfall that I pay for. I’m not down with that at all – on principle. This was also a factor in our serving notice. I don’t see why I should give someone x thousand dollars because I want to live in the house that I own. I understand that there should be some compensation for the headache of finding a new place. But, I don’t think it should amount to a penalty or punishment.
Also illegal to change the locks on tenants I believe?
In the real world there are a vast number of perfectly normal renters that don’t intentionally trash places and don’t try to stay on after legal notice has been given. As far as rental horror stories, there have always been some nightmare tenants – that is nothing new. I’d need more than anecdotes to convince me that problem tenants are more of a problem than they have ever been.
If they are a tenant they are not a squatter even if they are refusing to leave. In BC it is illegal for a landlord to cut off or interfere with any vital service including:
hot or cold water
fuel
electricity
natural gas
heat, from September 1 to June 15
If someone breaks in and takes up residence the police will remove them and they will be charged with B&E.
Frank, they are not squatters if they simply dispute the eviction notice. Not sure how long before a landlord and tenant hearing and further not sure if there is a right of appeal. Does anyone actually know the time lines?
Dee- I’ve been renting since 1989 with no serious issues in any property. My tenants in Ladysmith were initially a couple and her elderly mother (90’s). The mother and husband passed and she is left with 2 druggie adult children and her daughter’s children. There is no way I would rent anything to her dysfunctional son and daughter. They would end up homeless. This is going to become more prevalent as time goes on. Lots of FUBAR people out there.
Can’t an owner have the water and utilities turned off making life miserable for the squatters?
Dee: There is a real possibility that demanding “key money” will become an accepted norm at the same time that the amounts demanded really start to increase. If you are selling a million dollar property can you afford to have a deal fall through because you dont want to pay 20k or 25k of key money? That is enough money to tempt someone who already feels like they are being thrown out of Their Home by a greedy landlord.
Kristan, it’s ok to say “I don’t know, it’s magic”.
You are among friends here. 🙂
https://househuntvictoria.ca/2024/04/08/vancouver-premium-fades-but-its-still-a-lot-of-money/#comment-113864
What do you mean by that last part of the comment that new generation of renters will be more problematic? Can you plz elaborate?
I think buying a house with tenants has always had extra risk if you want to move into the tenanted portion. I remember looking at a house 10 years ago with a guy who had a major beef with the landlord and pretty much said to everyone who came to look at the house that he wouldn’t leave. He was there during showings because he refused to leave during them. There have always been bad players on both sides.
The number of people retiring each year is going to be declining from past years going forward over the next few years. The 55 to 59 tranche is already smaller than the 60 to 65 tranche in absolute numbers. You have to also account for deaths of the 55 to 59 tranche before reaching 65. The 50 to 54 tranche is even smaller than the 55 to 59 tranche (which will be reduced a lot before 65).
This will have some degree of impact on the raw numbers looking to retire in Victoria. What the real impact will be is hard to tell.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but it seems like if I am buying a house with tenants in it I will have to delay the close for at least four mounts to get vacant possession and there is nothing to guarentee that they will be out by then. If they appeal the eviction at the last minute it could take months to get them out or I walk away from the deal after perhaps having already sold my house. ( if I walk away from the deal do the tenants get another four months when there is a new offer?)
In other words, the same rates we had in the 1950’s and early 1960’s.
I think long term investors will not be eager to enter the real estate market. The numbers just don’t work, especially for SFHs. One would need $300,000 down which could generate $15,000 interest, hassle free. Part of which could be put into a TSFA. To carry a $900,000 mortgage on $4000 rent would definitely be cash flow negative given all the other expenses. I also think that the new generation of renters will be more problematic.
Several prominent sources in Canada and the US are predicting that interest rates may start to fall later in 2024 but will stay elevated, compared to the past 15 years well into the future as we enter a new era of higher inflation pressure. Canadian mortgages rates may stay in the 4 to 6% range or higher.
Will a higher discount rate keep real estate prices in check as investors lose interest in real estate and individuals are constrained on affordability?
Leo-Please remind me, are the weekly numbers exclusively residential or do they include commercial as well. Thanks.