Death by SSMUH SSMUH?

Segment on CBC news about long time renters paying below market rents being asked to leave by the owners. These people, the tenants highlighted were elderly or disabled, could never afford current market rents and have no place to go. The next segment was about the ridiculous traffic conditions in Toronto, caused by increased density. Canadian life is deteriorating compared to life decades ago. All the fault of government policies increasing the population. Do they not see this. It’s like talking to a wall.

It’s definitely possible. But it needs the motivation to fix things. Most of the last 50 years politicians have been incentivized to put up barriers because that’s what their constituents were asking for. Why are there 3 tree coordinators? Because city councilors get buried in outraged emails whenever a tree gets cut down, then they ask staff what is going on, then staff says we have only one tree coordinator and they can’t watch every tree, so they are told to hire 2 more.

The examples you listed are all relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. I am talking about seriously cutting bureaucracy. Pierre, for example, and other politicians have ran on platforms of such but rarely does it happen to any extent. Trump is another example, he boasts a lot about cutting red tape but when you actually look at the results he did less than Reagan, certainly nothing substantially structural in nature.

Once bureaucracy is engrained in the system it is incredibly difficult to remove. Even crap that is 100% useless like the owner-builder exam will never be removed. Do you think a typical permit checklist in a municipality will ever get shorter?

. You said the market can’t provide housing that the middle class can afford and as evidence you are using today’s prices which are based on decades of the government making multifamily illegal on the vast majority of our land, charging tens of thousands in fees, outlawing many forms of housing that would be cheaper to build, adding in layers of dubious requirements that each add cost and/or time, and overall heavily restricting the ability of the market to function.

I’m basing it on the current cost to build per square foot, current land costs and current interest rates.

I don’t know how much cost to build per square foot can realistically decline as it seems like most of the decline has been in square footage in an effort to make houses more affordable. Maybe these reforms reduce the cost to build per square foot but I don’t understand exactly how.

I am not sure land costs will decline, although they may not go up for a while which is a kind of decline vs. inflation.

I just don’t understand what we can realistically expect in terms of real price declines for new built housing in Victoria.

The fact that it’s limited to new builds probably means impact on prices is marginal. The policy is being widely dunked on but I don’t mind it. We had a 30 year mortgage as well to increase payment flexibility.. Nothing wrong with them per se.

Yes, I like the idea. It’s well targeted to help FTB and sales of new builds, so likely not going to affect prices overall.

One is affordable to buy and the other is affordable to rent.

Wait what? Why would government ever need to provide housing that is “affordable” to buy? Why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize someone else to buy a place? This is the the dumbest thing posted on here and that is saying something.

Sooo , all our problems started 50 years ago, okay then

. Affordable to the middle class? Definitely, if we let them.

The median middle class family income in Canada is what – 100k? Right now that will qualify you for a mortgage of about 430k plus your down payment and closing of say another 50k gets you to a purchase price of about 490k – probably less because there will be strata fees to account for as well.

What type of new build for a family is going to come in at 490k a unit in Victoria? Right now you get a one bed at 600 square feet tops.

I myself don’t mind how screwed up things are , it’s good for propping up prices . I see zero chance of anything changing other than interest rates coming down and prices going up .

Meh, the private sector is just never going to build affordable housing. Even with “free” long-term leases of government lands it is hard to get to affordable housing right now. Interest rates and building costs are just too high vs. median incomes.

Define affordable? Usually affordable housing is developed by a non-profit who takes government money to build. They use the same contractors that a for profit developer would use but obviously they aren’t really motivated to control costs as much as a for profit developer would.

They have some great data between the three completed towers (two strata, one rental) and they aren’t moving forward with next two.

The return profile on rentals vs for sale condos are different (financing, cashflow, tax etc.), they are likely looking at it from a firm wide perspective on what is better for them overall while also factoring the macro conditions and make the most of the land they have on the site. They are also likely waiting on costs to decrease, which is happening for the larger builds.

how do some governments manage to do it? What separates them from those who can’t?

Are there examples in history where democratic governments have substantially reduced bureaucracy?

They can shift to rentals and those pencil with the various programs available, end result is more units on the market.

I can’t really see how a decrease in real estate prices (without a reduction in construction costs) would result in more units to market overall.

Lots of rental projects not penciling either. If BOSA’s rental tower was performing to a certain level they would go to CHMC and get the next two started as rentals.

They have some great data between the three completed towers (two strata, one rental) and they aren’t moving forward with next two.

I know it isn’t popular, but it is a matter of fact. You introduce a policy which decreases market prices beyond a critical threshold developer simply shelf projects and less housing is built.

They can shift to rentals and those pencil with the various programs available, end result is more units on the market.

Do you think the multiple “tree preservation coordinators” want to make things simple and common sense regarding trees or do you think they want to make it complicated to protect their jobs?

I don’t think the tree preservation coordinators are smart enough to realize this.

Government can absolutely reduce costs.

They can, but they won’t. There is too much bureaucracy to keep afloat.

These people at COV need to be paid

Inclusion Coordinator 85,746.00
Comms and Engagement Advisor 103,073.8
Climate & Env Sustain. Spec 108,508.55
EV Infrastructure Coordinator 93,584.42
Aquatic Coordinator 80,926.28
Tree Preservation Coordinator 84,913.59
Tree Preservation Coordinator 86,002.15
etc., long list of positions that in my opinion if they were eliminated the city would still function.

Do you think the multiple “tree preservation coordinators” want to make things simple and common sense regarding trees or do you think they want to make it complicated to protect their jobs?

For every tangible job (even thought they probably do a fraction of output compared to private sector) like Road Marker 72,135.26 there are multiple non-sense positions and how do you pay for all the non-sense? Taxes/fees.

Now multiply X all other municipalities.

and I don’t think we live in a time where the majority of people would be down with eliminating the “inclusion coordinator” to lower DCCs, for example. Therefore, in my opinion we are screwed long term.

If your argument is that condo prices need to be very unaffordable to get them to pencil then that’s not going to be very popular.

I know it isn’t popular, but it is a matter of fact. You introduce a policy which decreases market prices beyond a critical threshold developer simply shelf projects and less housing is built.

Focus needs to be on costs.

Good luck with the government reducing costs, common, let’s be real. It will never happen.

They’re doing some of that, but not enough (recent BC Hydro changes are positive, single stair if they do it right, more by-right zoning, etc).

And offsetting “some” but increasing costs all over the place that doesn’t make the news. I was talking to a developer the other day and the COV was charging him $40,000 to “rent the boulevard” on a rental project. You have to pay for bureaucracy somehow.

The cure for a dull summer day …. is Summer!
https://youtu.be/QvMytYGzabM?si=FXMWigjH7lvOmD3-

Not it for getting surgery from the enforcement clerk repurposed to be a doctor.

And an enforcement clerk is a specific degree or skillset? There were just a bunch of enforcement clerks sitting around BC unemployed before the airbnb crackdown?

Big picture is we are pulling resources from more important things in society, imo.

Instead of investing in trades and med schools we are trying to sovle problems by creating over-regulation and then wasting resources to regulate that over-regulation.

Let me know where rents are at in 5 years with spec tax, airbnb ban, tenancy act changes, whatever else they can think of.

I bet it will be roughly revenue neutral similar to the spec tax.

A net revenue loss when considering the fall in tax revenue from the loss of rental and tourist visits to many businesses. Tourism is a big part of our economy.

30+ day doesn’t fall under CoV’s STR regulation, so presumably this is legal.

Case and point, not that simple. I was told by the COV short term rental enforcement department legal if a one bedroom condo/house; however, if a two bedroom or larger you actually need a license.

Other questions such as what if you have a two bedroom and you lock off the primary bedroom and rent it on airbnb as a one bedroom while you are on vacation they had no idea.

Enforcement would be piece of cake if it was province wide, one set of rules, but it isn’t. It is a s*** show imo. Between the province and every municipality enough resources are being wasted on this to an equivalent of opening an urgent care center or small hospital.

I am guessing COV has three people in their department? Province has just eight investigators which probably lead to more gov support staff + manager, etc. Probably 100+ people province wide working on this.

and then you have municipalities wanting to change rules -> https://www.biv.com/news/real-estate/victoria-to-tinker-again-with-rules-for-short-term-rentals-9248144

theoretical fines probably more than driving drunk and running over someone.

Sales: 571 (down 2% in terms of sales per business day compared to same time last year. Note sales year over year will be higher due to additional business days this year)

Not really feeling this per business day method as our VREB spreadsheets going back 35 years provide sales in absolute numbers, not business day adjusted.

640ish sales for the month not the worst, I was expecting something in the 500s.

2010 – 527
2011 – 523
2012 – 523
2013 – 583
2014 – 681
2015 – 796
2016 – 972
2017 – 790
2018 – 651
2019 – 706
2020 – 979
2021 – 835
2022 – 510
2023 – 595
2024 – approx. 640

I hope you’re right Leo. It somehow doesn’t seem that it will be that easy to collect.

This is going to cost the government so much money.

I am guessing dealing with the spec tax liens on my properties this year cost the government in the thousands. I had to deal with multiple government departments, probably a legal team that registers and dischargers the liens with BC Land Title, etc.

Could have all been avoided if they just emailed me (I enter my email into the declaration ever year) or phoned, but nope.

Regardless of what you think of the STR rules, this seems like a fantastically bad business decision by the operators now that the government actually has the data from the providers with addresses

What a great opportunity for a first time buyer to pick up a principal residence unit downtown at a substantial discount and airbnb it during the summer while crashing at their parents’ home or similar. Rates are going to be through the roof with no competition.

with the province currently employing eight investigators and municipalities also having their own enforcement teams.

Great use of resources, not like we need nurses or doctors or anything.

Administrative penalties are levied by a statutory decision maker, not the court. There is no day in court, unless you judicially review the decision.

I have been watching the downtown condo and rental market and the number of illegal vacation rentals still operating does make sense as I expected a surge in listings and long term leases that has not happened.

In fact in the last two weeks I have seen a reversal as I suspect airbnb operators have been buoyed with confidence by the lack of enforcement .

My opinion has always been that we need to fix the rental problem in Victoria before we can make progress on affordable housing to purchase.

Does anyone here know what the average seniors residence is charging and which residences can one recommend. One of my neighbors lost her husband and thinks it time.

A few years ago we paid about $7500 a month for a decent one. I assume costs probably have gone up.

.

Boomer vs. Millennial

https://youtube.com/shorts/Al9M0CtS3-s?si=Tm9qlC4GV1RnfLW6

Absolutely agree that the US deficit is a real concern. My point was that Canadians purchasing power is diminished from even a decade ago.

We are down to 72 cents US. This should be a concern. …For example, our Social Security alone(old age pension) is almost 6000 Canadian a month and since I never worked in the US nor paid income tax there

Given your fiscally conservative posts, are you also concerned with the US government providing this level of social benefits ($6,000/month), using borrowed money – $2 trillion deficit in this non-recession year.

This concern is summarized nicely in this 1700’s quote from Benjamin Franklin.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. – Ben Franklin

Interesting article in today’s TC:

“ecosystems support societies that create economies” … When we try to operate in contradiction to that ­dictum, we drive ecosystems into decline, or even into collapse, and with them the societies and communities that depend upon them.

Increasingly, then, “decline and collapse” is the “business as usual” future, the probable future, which is in itself an interesting shift in perception.

https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/trevor-hancock-decline-and-collapse-is-the-future-for-business-as-usual-9278161

A 70 cent dollar wouldn’t be the worse , good for exports . Inflation is a dead fish , so interest rates can keep dropping . If we start to ramp house prices we can inflate all that debt away . Easy peasy

Ya, it just keeps declining our living standards and masks Canada’s poor productivity, but gives people an artificial feeling of wealth since it appears to inflate assets with the lower dollar value as we sell things for less real return. The late 90s and early 2000s called, they want it’s failed fiscal policy back that has contributed to Canada’s declining standard of living since.

Thursty, just consider where the dollar was at about ten years ago. If you are feeling poorer it is because you actually are. But I am not here to argue since almost all my source of funds is sitting in USD. Everything just got a bit cheaper for me.

>72 cents doesn’t sound too bad , a couple more interest rate cuts this year and the dollar and the economy should come roaring back

The more we lower interest rates, the lower the dollar will go. They are all interconnected. International money will flow to where it can get the best return. We have become addicted to cheap credit and our economy is showing that result. We need the flexibility to boost and retard the economy with interest rates but the average should be a couple of points above inflation. We seem to want to keep boosting all states of the economy where it is booming or lagging……

We are down to 72 cents US. This should be a concern.

Want to really fix healthcare, pay people not to access it. Give everyone $1000 free care every year, what you don’t use, you keep. Doctors would have to drive Ubers to make up for lost business.

Patrick , was not aware of the settlement. Like I said the level of care is great , throw in 1200 bucks for a mri here and there and u feel pretty good about yourself

“I agree that some user fee, even a fairly nominal one (means-tested if need be) would be sensible. ”

Me too. I lived in a country where every single person paid ~10$ Canadian for a visit to clinic or hospital. I’d be in favour of something like that – a minimal fee. I spoke with a family doctor here and they said it’s often the same people coming to appointments several times a week taking up resources that they don’t need. If there’s a $10 fee that would hopefully deter that kind of behaviour.

Now $1.2 million below previous purchase price – 3777-waring-pl-saanich-cadboro-bay

Still $150k over assessment. https://www.bcassessment.ca//Property/Info/QTAwMDBIUFdMRQ==

I’m in favor of catastrophic health care insurance. If you want someone to put a bandaid on your boo-boo, you have to pay for it. Too many people run to a doctor for every little thing to get a magic cure in a bottle

I agree that some user fee, even a fairly nominal one (means-tested if need be) would be sensible. Why do we as a society insist on a completely “free” universal health care system (now collapsing under its own weight) while a rollout of dental care just ignores that approach altogether as being obviously too expensive and instead focuses on lower-income earners? It seems obvious to me that many more things should be means-tested in some fashion. And yeah, OAS threshholds should be meaningfully lowered – I say that even though I may soon enough be an OAS beneficiary.

I’d put in a $15 or $20 fee for seeing the doctor (means-tested if you like). Then I’d allow clinics an option to opt into a system whereby the $ fee goes directly to the clinic or doctor (not just back into the system) provided the clinic agrees to restore true walk-in services X hours per week.

Now $1.2 million below previous purchase price – https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/27222260/3777-waring-pl-saanich-cadboro-bay

For the past few decades we tried the capitalist/individualistic response of just basically ignoring the problem.
I think we already tried this one approach of doing nothing and it lead to the current total sh-t show.

Oh, no, just the opposite. We have been actively promoting drug addiction as an acceptable lifestyle choice.

Patrick, are they currently suing Telus Health? The only links I’ve found are actions that have already been settled. I’ve been looking at Telus and a couple other stocks (BCE) as possible buys.

There is only one solution to homelessness, it’s called work. That will only work if we remove drugs from our society. How? Death penalty for drug dealers.

Frank and VicRE seem like they might be on the verge of going Galt 🙂

Two things. (1) When it comes to homelessness there is no easy answer. Every possible “solution” will result in some other effect that’s not desirable. For the past few decades we tried the capitalist/individualistic response of just basically ignoring the problem. Shelter rates didn’t increase, no social housing was built. There has been a total lack of social investment in helping out the poor and those with challenges. Now, look at the effect. People without funds, the poor, are sleeping on the streets in ever greater numbers. The homelessness becomes visible and obviously it’s sad. I personally don’t like seeing it. I would much rather that every single person is housed. Forcing people to work – forced labour???? That’s a pretty major tenet of most communist states. It’s just crazy extremism to me. (2) All the stuff about the welfare state and the concerns about no one being motivated to work if there are “handouts” really shows ignorance about what it’s like to be poor. Being poor – actually poor – really truly sucks. Guaranteeing a minimum standard of housing and food – something basic and minimum that’s required to just survive with some amount of dignity – does not, to me, risk that most people will aspire to that! Most people will want more. We all want more, most of the time, right? Look at our society – we are consumers.

I think we already tried this one approach of doing nothing and it lead to the current total sh-t show. Time to try something new. And also, what’s wrong with a little compassion. Really. Like even Prince William tried sleeping rough in his youth and even he seems to have more insight into how it truly sucks to be poor than some of the commenters on this site.

visits a doctor a lot – 5 times per year.

Extreme persistence on the phone netted me my first doctor appointment since 2021 several weeks back.

Vicreanalyst, yep I think they just opened up another office in Van . There was some chatter about them opening up in Langford which I would be into .

What has clearly changed over the years is that people are no longer responsible for anything. The state will pick up the tab. Arrived at retirement with no money because you frittered and partied it away your whole life? No problem. We have that covered.

People on social assistance should be required to go to a centre every day before 9:00am to pick up their daily allowance. If there is work for them that day, they would have to accept it, or not get their daily allowance. This would apply to able bodied individuals. One way to solve the labor shortage.

Frank , yep left wing socialist policy iscreating a crisis with most things . The only upside is that if u own a sfh , most new regulations and tax’s are going continue to drive up the price . The rungs on the ladder are getting bigger and there’s no turning back . If your in a condo , u stay in a condo

Residents dismayed after Victoria agrees to allow social-services centres throughout city

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/residents-dismayed-after-victoria-agrees-to-allow-social-services-centres-throughout-city-9271026

The average Canadian visits a doctor a lot – 5 times per year.

That’s the number of visits per capita per year. It’s not the “average Canadian”. Doctor’s visits are highly skewed toward the elderly and those with chronic conditions.

First of all you have to buy the home with after tax income which is upwards of 50%, then when the home is built the government takes 1/3 of the value in fees/taxes, then in BC you pay property transfer tax, then property tax and potentially spec tax once you own the home, then income on the rental suite, etc.

When is it enough?

A 10-20% user fee would go a long way to fix things, it’s the abuse of a free system that ruins it

Absolutely. Small user fees, with an affordable yearly cap, would likely solve the family doctor shortage.

The average Canadian visits a doctor a lot – 5 times per year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/236589/number-of-doctor-visits-per-capita-by-country/

If we could cut that down to 4 times per year, that would free up 20% of doctor time to accept new patients without doctors. Likely solving the family doctor crisis.

In Sweden they have affordable user fees ($32 cad to see a doctor, maximum total fee $140/year ($280/family) for all health care fees including doctor, hospital) . So nobody is paying more than $140 per year for healthcare user fees in Sweden. https://www.thenewbieguide.se/health/costs-fees/patient-fees/

And presto, Swedes see the doctor only 2 times per year.
Swedes life expectancy (83.65) is higher than Canada (83.02) https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/
With the money they save doing this, they are able to provide dental care as well (with similar small, capped user fees of course)

Some quick facts on the OAS:
Current max income before claw-back kicks in $86,912. After that you lose 15% through the OAS clawback until OAS is zero.
OAS payments are $718 per month 65-74, after that it goes to $790
At $718, you receive $8,616 per year. OAS is taxable
If you hit the magic income threshold of $86,912 you pay $17,307 in tax; add in OAS of $8,616 and you pay $20,747.
A 74 y/o senior at the max income threshold pockets a cool $5,176 per year after tax.

All of the $8,616 or in the case of the unicorn wage earner with net OAS of $5,176 goes back into the economy and supports all of your neighbors. The governments scrape 95% of it back in various forms of taxation as it cycles over-and-over through the economy.

Think the above situation or that people sitting on millions of cash while collecting OAS is real life? Here’s a real example:

There are 4 retirees above me that are between 75 and 80, they are all widows, all women – 2 mothers, 1 step, and my sibling’s MIL (spouses all died between 62-74, only 2 of them ever collected any OAS). One lives on a defined benefit pension and owns a townhouse (income maybe $70,000 per year), one lives on half of what was a fed DB pension and owns a condo (maybe $38,000 / year), the other two have received GIS at one time or another, so their income is down around $20,000.

Want to reduce the threshold or introduce an asset means test? Sure, why not. Better yet, let’s do away with OAS all together, but reduce the tax in the lowest threshold by the same amount (sound familiar?) Let people save for their own retirement. I would vote for that, just don’t come looking for my house when I turn 65.

COV MMI rental project BP being held up as Telus hasn’t provided specific enough drawings to the liking of COV Staff .
Just curious if you could say well it is a 10 unit townhome, will provide starlink or something?

These “developers” should realize they are getting funded by CMHC (government) money, which comes with lots of strings attached, including a timeline. They should get their act together complying with COV requests, and not bother asking on an Internet forum whether simply saying “Starlink or something” would be good enough in lieu of requested detailed drawings for internet/phone plans.
For the record, use common sense, of course simply saying “Starlink or something” wouldn’t be an adequate response.

Ya, government building houses will likely make things worse and end up in a massive fail.

This would be a complete and utter disaster. I’ve literally seen on two occasions a developer that likely has a networth in excess of $50 million personally doing traffic control for a cement truck backing out one of his developments on Johnson and one on Shelbourne. If the government was building you can only imagine how things would be.

It would literally be one giant disaster from the get go in that when all the “stakeholders” had their say the architectural drawings would be insanely expensive to execute on and then the disaster would grow from there.

The COV council voted down the first Ironworks proposal because they felt “people needs outdoor space/balconies” and the proposal didn’t have such, like wtf, let the market decide if people want balconies or not. Guess what, if people want balconies the project won’t sell and on the next project the developer will add balconies. My point being if government is building once everyone had their say (people need balconies, people need a green rooftop, people need an inclusive amenity room to socialize, people need three bicycle spots per unit, etc.) the cost of a government unit would far beyond the free market value of the unit.

Im not trying to shame boomers.

Rather than shaming we must honor the hardships they had to endure.

• Having to finish high school before landing a high paying job
  • Having to spend HUNDREDS of dollars of tuition if they pursued higher education

I’m noticing a bit of an uptick in sales , could it be the latest interest rate cut and maybe chatter of 2 more is perking up the market . Houses I have seen lingering are suddenly selling

No such subsidies exist for younger cohorts? Pretty sure daycare is subsidized and K-12 is paid for by people that don’t have kids. Pretty sure the child benefit checks and BC family benefit funding come from boomers taxes too.

This is a flawed argument and a straw man.

First I don’t hate OAS. I think OAS should be maintained for low income seniors and GIS should be better supported. What I object to is that OAS pays nearly $20k per year to rich senior couples earning up to double the median household income. I have family members worth millions who are eligible (as a couple) for $17k per year — the maximum payout.

Meanwhile we spend more on debt interest than on healthcare.

All Canadians should oppose such wasteful spending.

Second, even a cursory review of our governments’ spending shows us that Childcare costs are peanuts compared to seniors benefits and healthcare (another mostly seniors benefit). Here’s a federal spending flowchart if you’d like to compare daycare and the child benefit to OAS and healthcare:?ssl=1

There’s no good flow chart for BC provincial spending, but Table 1.3 here suggests about $13 billion for Chilecare, education and post secondary combined versus 28 billion for healthcare: https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2024/pdf/2024_Budget_and_Fiscal_Plan.pdf

And let’s not forget that OAS now tops $60 billion per year and in 25 year it will be over $200 billion (refer to the official Liberal 2024 budget).

Do you think education spending is going to more than triple over the next 25 years? Fat chance.

The reality is it’s easy to poke holes in an argument if you don’t want to become educated on the issue.

Our government and has been aware of the OAS boondoggle for 20 years and they failed to close the loophole, and each subsequent government has dropped the ball ever since.

Please take the time to become educated about this issue. It’s been written about extensively in the Globe and Mail this past year and there’s much more experienced commentators than me who have rightly pointed to this as one of many major budget priorities of future governments:

If they have the stones to deal with it before our debt balloons even further.

So boomers had it so much better pre-internet. Do you have any idea how much money some people are making online? Millions. eBay, Etsy, instagram, any number of sales platforms. Plus the other YouTubers raking in millions on their sites (especially beautiful women), etc, etc… Stop feeling sorry for yourselves, it’s pathetic.

That is a good article posted by Introvert. The municipal, provincial, federal have a stake in housing today. Unlike housing built in the past. And each wants a bite of the housing pie which has caused prices to bloat.

Could this be a workable solution for the homeless?

https://youtu.be/gNhBiw9pgUo?si=sFoyK5y5LZ-3MWak

Feel free to speak for yourself Ironcondo, but I’m a millennial and I’m not mad but I guess you and I boil at different degrees

Gambler, Im not trying to shame boomers. Of course they’re just going to act in their own best interest the same way any millenial would. I think its important to recognize the systemic issues that are prevalent now that weren’t prevalent then. Most boomers want the world to be at least as good or better for the next generation. No millenial I know (except stupid ones) want their property rights to be trampled on or their ability to have second homes removed (i.e. airbnb legislation). The boomers and the gen-xers benefitted greatly from the building of the era afte world war 2 up until the late 1970s/early 1980s. Up until that point houses were built cheaply and many were subsidized. When they all got theirs they just stopped. Mostly because likely the demand dried up until now. Well, time to kick those subsidies and government builds back into high gear. The millenials are here and we’re mad.

Ripping on boomers (yes I mentioned them in relation to paying towards day and schools) is making less and less sense as Gen X now has the highest net worth. Someone shared that graph a few posts back and yet it’s always about retired boomers. I think Gen Z and Millennials are just jealous and our culture has shifted to one where instant gratification or success is expected and not earned. And im 37 so don’t okay boomer/GenX me

A large % of the silent and the boomers generation are very wealthly, despite what you read in the media. Its not uncommon for them to have an estate with a house and a couple of million investable assets passing on a million or more to each of their children on death. In fact I have seen in situations like this where an older parent has passed on and their 50 or 60 year old child doesn’t need the money and they pass it down to their children to put towards a house.

Gambler, yes, they already do that through taxation. Taxation that generates positive externalities that industry couldn’t excepting for monopoly/oligopoly (which is inefficient). Its why we have ferries, or BC Hydro. Because if industry was to build those infrastructures we the people would suffer immeasurably by their pricing. If government believes seriously that housing is a basic human need like healthcare, access to water, then it should definitely consider using its resources to provide that need as a service and not leave it up to builders and other profiteers.

Ironcondo, You do realize that the government can’t give anything to anyone without first taking it from someone else right? Trying to multiply wealth by dividing it has always been an unremarkable solution.

I did my undergrad at a university with many kids from wealthy families. I was envious of their privilege and thought it was unfair that they had such a different experience from me. But then I had kids and now I get it. Everything I do I do for them. I don’t think I have to save all of society if I have some wealth. I build for the future, for them. I think the families that are building intergenerational houses are so cool. I hope to maybe one day have my kids in my home. And, obviously I plan to give them everything I have. I do think a part of the answer is for the older generation to share a bit more. Whatever that looks like.

Working age families are big spenders that contribute heavily to the local economy creating jobs. Retirees tend to be savers contributing less to the economy. Programs that encourage participation in the workforce therefore have a higher multiplier effect on the GDP of a city.

That’s another reason why we need high immigration of working age people into Canada to support the benefits paid to an aging Canadian population.

No such subsidies exist for younger cohorts? Pretty sure daycare is subsidized and K-12 is paid for by people that don’t have kids. Pretty sure the child benefit checks and BC family benefit funding come from boomers taxes too. The government matching RESP contributions is another one.

This constant thought that taking from another to benefit your current situation is ridiculous as you’re going to do nothing but get older and age into these current subsidies you hate so much today.

If anyone knows, why are we not developing the Highlands. Seems like enough land to build thousands of SFH there? Close to town and everything.

. I’ll be living off my partial defined pension, OAS, CPP, rental income (hope not), RRSPs, TFSA, my margin account, and apparently my deferred property tax.

No inheritance? Or is that in your margin account already.

Ya, Whatever, she’ll have to wait. I’m retiring in the next couple years. I’ll be living off my partial defined pension, OAS, CPP, rental income (hope not), RRSPs, TFSA, my margin account, and apparently my deferred property tax. 🙂

Life is great when you get older.

Millennials won’t be coming to take your home Westerly. It’s Gen Alpha you have to worry about. That 14 year old girl walking to school who will be close to 30 when you’re about to retire.

https://youtube.com/shorts/KL-7YazxwT0?si=ljFFiI0mtnUpOkqM

Well, the beautiful mountain town of Jasper is possibly burning down at this moment. Meanwhile, Calgary has some of the worst air quality of any city on the globe right now.

As you can see I’m doom-scrolling. Or as I call it, scrolling.

Last I looked something like 67% of the population were homeowners, and undoubtedly the vast majority of those are over 50. So, what you are really talking about is taxing those that have paid (and are paying) their dues including their taxes, work their a$$es off throughout their working lives, and have paid off their houses – most of whom are seniors / retired. Then we give the money to the millennials et al.

This is so uninformed it’s silly.

First, pensioners would benefit from lower income tax to offset the higher land tax. That’s the key to lowering income taxes: it benefits everyone who earns salary and all of those who are drawing down their pensions and RRSPs as well.

Second, your comment reeks of entitlement. The only thing that seniors today have paid for with their taxes is CPP and past expenses. A generation of Boomer governments have run up the federal debt without saving anything for the future.

Take a look at the latest federal budget: the vast majority of spending goes to seniors, not to Millennials. The biggest expenses in the federal budget (after the bloated federal government operations themselves) are health care and OAS, as well as debt interest which was taken on to pay for health care and OAS.

This is huge tax burden that will be borne by current and future workers. Not by current retirees and seniors who are expecting to get major handouts.

The projections for OAS are horrifying. An 8x increase in expenses between 2010 and 2050, even as the ratio of workers to retirees crashes. This isn’t something that retirees paid for with their taxes. OAS is entirely a future tax burden on people who will not benefit from it.

Handouts to seniors abound and you’re asking for Millenials to pay for them. Quit complaining.

While we’re beating up on the lucrative opportunity to become elderly, according to a BC Senior’s advocate page, “Eight out of ten seniors in B.C. are homeowners with modest or low incomes and are finding it very hard to keep up with rising costs. Almost half of B.C. seniors live on an income that is less than minimum wage,”

This is a problematic inference to draw.

Most seniors in BC own their own homes. They might not be drawing much income, but a majority hold a fair bit of wealth. If your fixed expenses are low due to, for example, not having to pay rent or a mortgage, you won’t need to draw much taxable income after retirement. This will tend to produce “income” statistics for many seniors that make them look much less wealthy than they actually are.

The actual data show that BC seniors are earning comparable “income” to people aged 25-35, on average, across major percentile categories. Keep in mind that people in the younger age category are almost overwhelming renters without any wealth.

The data is here: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/dv-vd/income-revenu/index-en.html

Let’s not forget that additionally the federal government provides a massive handout to senior couples ($17k to a couple >65; $19k to a couple >75) and this money goes to high income senior couples earning up to $173k per year in household income (roughly double the median), in the form of OAS.

No such subsidy exists for the much less wealthy younger cohorts.

Westerly, that’s a dog whistle. No one on this blog has advocated for anything close to what you wrote.

Now my opinion, and feel free to attack it, is that there are what I consider predatory real estate schemes on the elderly such as reverse mortgages that do go after the retiree’s equity.

But even at that, it’s not free; the interest rate on the deferral is currently 5.2%.

But that’s the nominal simple interest rate. There is no interest charged on the unpaid interest amount, which in any market based loan is added to the principal on which interest is charged. That means the actual market interest rate gets lower and lower the longer the payments are deferred.

Is it too many cooks in the kitchen or that everyone wants a piece of the pie?

Patriots, by “barrage of subsidies” are you referring to the Homeowner grant (Mine is aprox 15%) and the Senior grant that starts at 65? (mine if I was 65 is 6.8%). Hardly a “barrage” at $1,000 off $5,000. I agree, the property tax deferral should be income based. But even at that, it’s not free; the interest rate on the deferral is currently 5.2%. More than a Senior can make on a GIC, which means it likely only makes sense if you actually need it, i.e. lower income.

While we’re beating up on the lucrative opportunity to become elderly, according to a BC Senior’s advocate page, “Eight out of ten seniors in B.C. are homeowners with modest or low incomes and are finding it very hard to keep up with rising costs. Almost half of B.C. seniors live on an income that is less than minimum wage,” (no, I haven’t verified the source or stat, but I’ll accept it as reasonably accurate for this discussion)

I would suggest the 68,000 deferrals is represented primarily by seniors of modest means.

I’ve been talking a lot over the last six months about the high costs of housing and renting in BC and what it could mean for renters and some home owners. This might be worth a listen.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/news/nearly-40-of-new-immigrants-thinking-of-moving-due-to-high-housing-costs-poll/vi-BB1pnv7m?ocid=socialshare

Whatever, I actually plan to do just that if the interest makes sense. If I do, I’ll put on my children’s mortgages. And for the rest, I’m not crying, I’m just already paying enough tax already and the notion that keeps coming up that we should force seniors out of their homes through ever higher property tax is ridiculous.

And no, the flow of taxes doesn’t always go both ways. I’ll continue to pay my share of tax until I die.

work their a$$es off throughout their working lives, and have paid off their houses – most of whom are seniors / retired. Then we give the money to the millennials et al

The flow of dollars goes the other way so stop crying. Working folks pay income taxes to support all sorts of perks for seniors including low interest property tax deferral and free cash in the form of a larger Homeowners Grant for the wrinklies.

Count on property taxes continuing to go up by at least 2x the rate of inflation annually indefinately.

Zach, “Tax the land wealth and reduce taxes on workers.”

Last I looked something like 67% of the population were homeowners, and undoubtedly the vast majority of those are over 50. So, what you are really talking about is taxing those that have paid (and are paying) their dues including their taxes, work their a$$es off throughout their working lives, and have paid off their houses – most of whom are seniors / retired. Then we give the money to the millennials et al.

Property tax is collected to provide municipal services, infrastructure, roadways, water and sewer charges etc. It is collected to operate the municipality and surrounding services, CRD,..etc. (which, by the way, also benefits renters.) It is not an income or equity tax nor should it be. And, land value is already included in the calculation. The higher the value of the property including the land, the more an owner pays.

Between my wife and I we paid somewhere over $50,000 last year in income tax, over $5,000 in property tax, GST, PST, what else…

We already pay enough taxes.

Bank of Canada cuts key interest rate again, more cuts ‘reasonable’ if inflation keeps easing

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-of-canada-july-meeting-1.7273417

Interesting article. Is there any city in North America where this approach has been tried?

It’s a part of the anti-stigmatization thing. The belief is that there is nothing wrong with the behaviour, it’s society’s view of it. So, the goal is to “normalize” addiction, vagrancy, crime and etc.. across communities so it’s a part of what people see every day so it will no longer seems shocking to people that hold “biases” against the activities and the so called “marginalized” and “vulnerable” people engaged in the activities. It’s why Eby and them originally opend up drug use to include playgrounds and other places without restriction (before they back peddled).

Zach not a bad idea. I would probably widen the scope a bit more to properties where the majority of value is situated in the land component to encourage re-development of the site.

Comment: Mayor’s radical proposal will spread disorder throughout Victoria

https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/comment-mayors-radical-proposal-will-spread-disorder-throughout-victoria-9259991

I see the logic Nan, but this doesn’t explain why the housing crisis is happening in countries without similar immigration, and carbon tax policies.

The most exposed housing markets all followed the same strategy: restricted housing supply, sold at high rates to investors internationally and domestically, with high prices subsidized by low property tax rates and high income tax rates.

Best way to chase the wealthy speculators out is to add on a land value tax (more acceptable and better targeted than general property tax) and to take every cent from that added tax and to put it towards lowering income tax rates. Make it as broad as possible by targeting the lower tax rates to the bottom tax bracket.

Tax the land wealth and reduce taxes on workers.

Now which party can I vote for to make this happen? All I hear is Crickets…

Tells you whose pocket our leaders are in.

An understatement. You just had to be around for the 70’s to know what protracted inflation was really like. Not brought under control until the early 80s when Volcker and colleagues brought down the hammer. And it didn’t get below 2% until the 90’s.

Yes indeed. Took until 1992 to see inflation below 4.0%.

And that goes for mortgage rates too.
The 5 year posted mortgage rate stayed above 10% continuously from 1974 to 1992 !.
https://www.ratehub.ca/5-year-fixed-mortgage-rate-history

So I wouldn’t jump into variable rates and assume the all clear on inflation just yet.

On the bright side for homeowners, house prices doubled during the 1980’s.

I don’t think the progress on inflation is that slow, historically.

An understatement. You just had to be around for the 70’s to know what protracted inflation was really like. Not brought under control until the early 80s when Volcker and colleagues brought down the hammer. And it didn’t get below 2% until the 90’s.

Tiff was bullied into cutting the interest rate last month, and he is being bullied again to cut tomorrow even though the progress on inflation has been slow and choppy.

I don’t think the progress on inflation is that slow, historically. I think more likely than him being bullied, he/they are scared s#itless of our overly-real-estate-dependent economy tipping into recession as & when the bulk of mortgage renewals continue to roll in. He’s got a window to cut & he’s using it – good.

Whatever the truth of this, you can bet he’s going to be more heavily influenced by any weakness/fragility he sees or senses in Ontario, ie. Toronto, and as per usual, this will determine the outcome for the rest of the country.

My bet in this is that they will lower the rates just in time to avoid a major debacle on the mortgage renewals and we will once again sort of skate by. Though it’s admittedly a narrow path, and could go wrong in either direction.

Patrick- Excellent point. That’s the result, as I’ve said before, of unnatural population growth. This will also produce a rapidly aging demographic eventually, putting more stress on health care. The government should have increased adoptions from foreign countries, that would have eliminated the language barriers we are experiencing now. It’s difficult to hire someone who doesn’t understand the native languages.

I’m getting the sense that some of the over listed downtown condos (by 10 %) are becoming more realistic in their pricing and that could lead to an increase in downtown sales.

Yes Thursty and wooing back foreign investors which is going to take some time as their economies have to rebound.

https://precondo.ca/chinese-investment-in-canadian-real-estate/

We will be renewing a mortgage next year – hence why I was asking about the 5 year rates (mortgage rates). Seems like maybe we will get lucky if you all are right that there are more rate cuts coming.

Whatever, as the demographics change over the next five to ten years there will be a reduction in demand from this demographic.

We may want to give some thought to building a lot more nursing homes (or convincing a lot more people to sign up for MAID). If I read the stats right we are at the point that there less people turning sixty-five today than last year and even less each year for the next decade. On the tip of the pyramid though is an increasing number of people needing nursing homes.

This has obvious implication for housing.

I see the logic Nan, but this doesn’t explain why the housing crisis is happening in countries without similar immigration, and carbon tax policies.

https://househuntvictoria.ca/2024/07/22/death-by-ssmuh-ssmuh/#comment-117788

Headline Inflation is currently and primarily caused by

Rental prices (caused by government immigration policy)
Food prices (caused by the governments carbon tax and Canadian food production quotas and distribution oligopolies)
Services (caused by government jacking RE development fees & property taxes and oligopolies increasing prices for bank charges, phone bills etc.) I have seen ZERO upward price pressure in the markets that actually for function properly and for services people actually want (trades, construction, legal, accounting, etc.)
Mortgage costs (caused by interest rates being high as a consequence of the above three)

Long story short, inflation can be zero tomorrow and lowering interest rates is going to help. But this stupid country just can’s stop stealing from people who actually do work to fund people who work for or are on the right side of government or who are in business that are government protected/ enabled (banks, telecom, insurance, food etc)

Long story short, Canadians are poor and getting poorer (see GDP per capita) and inflation is only high because this country is full of powerful greedy LAZY fucks who are taking advantage of the swirling public perception to steal from value creating Canadians at all levels by government and government protected business.

Tiff was bullied into cutting the interest rate last month, and he is being bullied again to cut tomorrow even though the progress on inflation has been slow and choppy. He will probably oblige tomorrow, but expect him to resort to verbal jawboning for the early September meeting: how slow the progress on inflation is, don’t want to stoke inflation again, wait from Fed to make the first cut (late September), etc. By early September, we would be 0.75 – 1.0% below the Fed rate, which will probably take CAD to $0.70 USD.

I still haven’t switched over to your per day sales pace mindset.

It will all even out over a couple of month anyways.

Also from your link Patrick.

Right. That’s why I said “ Victoria builders association makes a good case asking for a cap on rising fees and regulations, which they’ve been requesting for a long time.”
Of course they’re also asking for interest rates to fall, and would be happy to see all costs of building homes fall, as we all would. Not sure what is new about any of that. It is nice to see the number of housing starts up from last year’s at/near record number, despite all these problems. Likely means they still are expecting to be making a profit building homes.

Despite the doom-n-gloom here on HHV about getting building permits approved … Building starts (CMHC numbers) in Greater Victoria year-to-date up 5% from last year’s at/near record levels. Monthly numbers are volatile…Earlier this year, they were up 20% from last year. COV is way down from last year (down 20%), but large multi-unit project could turn that around in a month. Victoria builders association makes a good case asking for a cap on rising fees and regulations, which they’ve been requesting for a long time.

https://www.vrba.ca/news/greater-victoria-housing-starts-still-up-5/

“Most of the new housing is in Langford (827), representing 43% of all new housing in our region. They are followed by Colwood (336), Victoria (303), Saanich (253), Sooke (72), View Royal (69), Esquimalt (18). Oak Bay has 11, Sidney 10, North Saanich 5. Sidney has seen a sharp decline since the new council was elected in 2022.  Also doing poorly are the municipalities posting zero starts – Central Saanich, Highlands, and Metchosin. “