[canucklehead2]

Hey everyone, what do you think might be some viable solutions to the provinces acute lack of affordable housing? Let's have a virtual brainstorming session...

Here are some of my ideas...

01-A mandated % of all new developments set aside for affordable units. Eg, a 500 unit apartment complex must sell 10% of its units at cost to a local housing authority in exchange for approval or zoning bonuses

02-Rent Control... The solution few people like because in the long term it doesn't do much to increase the supply, only keep the existing supply affordable which does end up getting run down in the long run because the cost of maintaining the space is more than its value or income generated. It might be a solution in the short term though, or something to continue to look at...

03-Prefabricated mass-produced housing... Have units built elsewhere and ship them in. That would save on local skilled tradespeople and eliminate most delays in existing construction projects if they were essentially done and ready to quickly assemble on site. Most houses in Scandinavia and Japan are built in this style, so I don't see why it shouldn't work here...

04-Secondary units... Adding more units in existing areas by converting basements to new units, as well as building new housing spaces above garages or possibly small cottage units in backyards. At my house alone, we could probably do all three, which would turn our single family house and yard into a virtual 4-plex, with a main floor unit, a basement apartment, an apartment above a new garage and a backyard cottage built on an empty 2nd driveway.

05-Avi Friedman's Grow and Next House schemes... For those of you unaware of McGill University professor Avi Friedman, he has designed two town house schemes which are designed to be mass produced and prefabricated if needed. The Grow House would be a 2 story townhouse of roughly 1100 sq ft which could be made from prefabricated panels or built on site as a shell and completed by relatively unskilled labor in a piecemeal fashion using interior wall panels. Apparently 10 000 units have been built since 1990 around Montreal. At the time they were being built for $35k per unit, which would be around $80k now. Next House is a similar scheme with larger floor plates of 800 sq ft which could be one large 3 story town house of 2400 sq ft or 3 units of 800 sq ft depending on several factors.

06-Flexible financing... One major hurdle to affordable housing right now is financing. So why not allow low income people to pay rent or their mortgage according to what they can afford. Currently most public housing agencies operate this way with residents paying 25-30% of their income each month rather than a set amount, so people who earn less can still afford a decent place to live. If this financial system could be expanded, more people could afford to buy real estate (under certain conditions, possibly with a no-profiteering clause)

Anyone else want to jump in?

[Coldrsx]

1 - coming down the pipe...and should be mandated in exchange for density bonusing.

2 - please god no

3 - huge potential market...already some here, but more needed.

4 - no brainer...

5 - see 3

6 - zero down payment, interest only, 40 yr mort........there are options.....scary scary options.

[freeweed]

6 - zero down payment, interest only, 40 yr mort........there are options.....scary scary options.

The entire US economy is in a free-fall right now due to exactly this. And it's taking a large chunk of the rest of the world along for the ride.

But hey, in the short term it is certain to make housing more "affordable" - mortgage foreclosures do make for cheap resale value. Problem is, the very people you're intending to help are the ones losing out the most.

No, I don't have any easy solutions for our affordable housing issue. Just wanted to point out that sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.

[Wooster]

Inclusionary zoning is certainly a huge part of the equation.

I'd also include a moratorium on condo conversions in times of below 2.0% rental vacancy or something like that. I'd also have no problem with flexible rent regulation that would limit increases to something like inflation + 2%. Allow secondary suites in all communities.

[Doug]

The solution is to do nothing.

[Champion3]

The entire US economy is in a free-fall right now due to exactly this. And it's taking a large chunk of the rest of the world along for the ride.
Agreed. All those mortgage hacks just inflate the price of real estate and result in more money being paid out in interest. 40 year mortgages are part of the problem, not part of the solution. As a government corporation charged with improving the affordability of homes, the CMHC is irresponsible for insuring those insanely long term mortgages.

[Rise_of_the_West]

There was a good piece in the Herald on the weekend about using Intermodal shipping containers as housing. These can be bough for as little as $500 US (not sure of the source) since there is a global over supply. These can then be retrofitted and serve as simple, affordable housing.

I would also like to this add about rent control: No, Not now, Not Later, Never.

Its just a bad idea (dare I say communist) to prohibit people from charging the market rate. It will lead to an even greater housing shortage as buildings are either converted to more profitable means of housing or condemd due to lack of maintainance.

[Wooster]

The solution is to do nothing.

Was that the solution 3 years ago too to avoid the current crisis we're in?

If a homeless population of 3500 and many more thousands on the brink is an acceptable condition in our city, then I guess you're right.

[frinkprof]

1 - More student residences. Alberta's post-secondary institutions are growing very rapidly, and in many cases their growth is outpacing infrastructure funding and construction. Long waiting lists for residence spots are commonplace. Students represent a significant portion of the renting market and while not everyone wants to live on campus during their schooling, they should at least have a more viable option than being on a huge waiting list. There is the added bonus of having campuses be more vibrant during off hours.

2 - There needs to be some sort of solution to the secondary suite dilemma, as others have outlined above.

3 - More options to developers who want to include affordable units in condo developments but are often met with counter-productive policies to that end from city hall (in the case of Calgary).

4 - Encouragement of and advertising campaigns for people to make room-and-board arrangements in their homes.

There are a few other ideas I've had that I haven't allowed time to develop yet, so maybe I will post those later upon more thought.

[The Geographer]

The solution is to do nothing.

Well, except that regulations restricting the market for secondary suites are in fact doing something. For that matter regulations restricting higher density in well-serviced older areas skew the market as well.

To act like this whole thing is just a market issue is ludicrous.

[The Chemist]

The solution is to do nothing.

http://www.backtogenesis.com/images/HeadInSand.JPG

[e909]

The solution is to do nothing.
I agree. The market will take care of itself.

People need to fu** off with telling private land owners what they should do with their own property.

[niwell]

I'd like to see a mix of all of the listed solutions to be honest. With the caveat that rent control be limited to a maximum allowable rent increase (as a percentage of rent) per year, barring certain situations that would have to be approved by some governing body. For those that would freak out at such a suggestion, keep in mind that this is the case in Ontario, and it seems to be working here.

Of the original suggestions though, my personal favourites are 1 and 4. Mandating a percentage of affordable housing for new developments is a must in my mind, and I think would be beneficial for all involved. This could also be coupled with density bonuses, or offsite affordable housing construction in-lieu of providing units in a development.

As for secondary units, they are a great idea. One need only to look to the situation in inner Toronto. A large percentage of houses (such as the one I'll be moving into next month) are occupied by the owner, but also have basement and main floor suites. This allows for increases in density while maintaining the built quality of residential areas. This could be useful in areas that are opposed to large scale infill, for an interim solution at the very least. And again, a win-win for all involved, as it eases the cost of renting as well as home ownership.

[The Chemist]

I agree. The market will take care of itself.

People need to fu** off with telling private land owners what they should do with their own property.

Yes, preserve the almighty market. I'm sure that'll make the working poor who can't afford exorborant rate increases or those that can't even find a place because the vacancy rate is so damn low feel so much better, that the market is taking care of itself. :rolleyes:

Views like this one make me sick. Where is the sense of compassion, of human decency? Oh, but the market is SO much more important than poor people. There aren't enough of these :rolleyes: to express how I feel about that one.

[ScottFromCalgary]

^Lose the moral indignation. I shed a tear for those who can't afford a good place to live, but I don't think you have the right to force others in society to look after the less fortunate.

[240glt]

It tell ya, if I knew in 2004 what I know now, I would have bought the big ol' 2 1/2 story just down the street that was for sale at the same time as I bought my house, gutted it & turned it into a big ol' rooming house, with my space on the top floor!. In my place, I've got a 1 bed suite in the basement plus I rent my spare room upstairs, I rent the suite for $400, (same tenant for two years, I won't raise rent on a NAIT student) and the upstairs room has been kind-of a revolving door, mostly friends of friends who've needed a cheap place to stay until they've found more permanent accomodations. Being close to downtown & NAIT, If I had five rooms for rent I could easily fill them all.

[The Chemist]

^Lose the moral indignation. I shed a tear for those who can't afford a good place to live, but I don't think you have the right to force others in society to look after the less fortunate.

I prefer moral indignation to heartless greed, thank you very much. :shrug:

Rent controls were supposed to kill rental development. But hey - there's no rent controls, there's a vacancy rate close to zero, and guess what? STILL no rental development! If this is the market working, I'd HATE to see it not working. But you guys can keep on worshipping the market, even though it's pretty obvious to the rest of us that the system is badly broken and needs to be fixed, big time.

[feepa]

It tell ya, if I knew in 2004 what I know now, I would have bought the big ol' 2 1/2 story just down the street that was for sale at the same time as I bought my house, gutted it & turned it into a big ol' rooming house, with my space on the top floor!. In my place, I've got a 1 bed suite in the basement plus I rent my spare room upstairs, I rent the suite for $400, (same tenant for two years, I won't raise rent on a NAIT student) and the upstairs room has been kind-of a revolving door, mostly friends of friends who've needed a cheap place to stay until they've found more permanent accomodations. Being close to downtown & NAIT, If I had five rooms for rent I could easily fill them all.

hindsight is 20/20

[e909]

Yes, preserve the almighty market. I'm sure that'll make the working poor who can't afford exorborant rate increases or those that can't even find a place because the vacancy rate is so damn low feel so much better, that the market is taking care of itself. :rolleyes:

Views like this one make me sick. Where is the sense of compassion, of human decency? Oh, but the market is SO much more important than poor people. There aren't enough of these :rolleyes: to express how I feel about that one.
Why is that my problem?

I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but I was thrown into the same market as everyone else.

Not all landlords are rich either. A lot of them are trying to make ends meat like everyone else. I don't see how forcing them to charge a certain amount, or telling them they can't sell their property as they wish is a solution to anything.

Perhaps encouraging a certain amount of units per apartment complex be of an affordable nature is a good idea, but under no circumstances should that be mandated or forced upon developers, or else you'll see no housing for anybody.

[ScottFromCalgary]

The fact is that building rentals is simply not the most profitable form of development right now. If there are no rentals being built right now, how do you figure that creating market inefficiency through price controls will solve the problem? All it will do is allow entrenched renters to hold onto properties that are more desired by other potential renters who are willing to pay more. That is no way to solve the affordable housing crisis. I agree that something needs to be done, but the solution sure as hell has nothing to do with punishing landlords.

Perhaps if the government didn't tax rental income that would increase the number of rentals out there. As it is, people prefer buying condos to renting, so why punish those providing a service the public desires?

[niwell]

Yes, preserve the almighty market. I'm sure that'll make the working poor who can't afford exorborant rate increases or those that can't even find a place because the vacancy rate is so damn low feel so much better, that the market is taking care of itself. :rolleyes:

Views like this one make me sick. Where is the sense of compassion, of human decency? Oh, but the market is SO much more important than poor people. There aren't enough of these :rolleyes: to express how I feel about that one.


Agreed. I find this very amusing on some levels as well, as there are, and will always be so many controls on land ownership that idealizing the free market is slightly ridiculous. The market is not a valid solution when there are already many government controls.

[WhipperSnapper]

The fact is that building rentals is simply not the most profitable form of development right now

why most of these suggestion involving the private sector are pointless including mandating a certain percentage be affordable (the developer will simply tranfers the additional cost to the purchase price of the market units taking more prospective buyers out of the market)

- do nothing (this boom won't last forever and even so as the industry matures efficiencies will go up and prices will stabilize or drop)

or any combination of

- stopping condo conversion
- allowing secondary suites
- City of Calgary Housing Corp

[entheosfog]

Enough sympathy for landlords. They've chosen to own property and rent it out to people and they face either prosperity or not.
Renters (myself included) don't have a choice of if we want a place to live or not.

[Policy Wonk]

Rent controls were supposed to kill rental development. But hey - there's no rent controls, there's a vacancy rate close to zero, and guess what? STILL no rental development!

If you impose rent control there will not only be no new rental development - but everything one step up from a crackhouse will be converted to condos or otherwise sold off.

There is no god given right to live in Alberta - I was offered a job in Los Angeles, practically a dream job. But I can't afford to live in California so I don't. It is no secret that it is expensive to live in Alberta.

[SHOFEAR]

Pick up a shovel. Labour wage minimum right now is $15 an hour. Expect to work at least 50 hours a week. Time =1.5 after 40 => 835 a week, => 3400 a month=> Living with a partner household income =6800 a month (before taxes) A quick google search seems to come up with a 30% figure of your income to housing....6800 is more than enough.

Then again I've been pushing 70 hours a week (six day working week) for the summer and taking 8 hours of night class a week (add a half dozen hours of homework to that) so i'm running pretty sort of sympathy for people punching a cash register for 40 hours a week in a climate controlled building bitching about the cost of housing and expecting somebody like me to care or see my tax dollars help you. Students, no arms...different story.

Got a problem with that. Too bad. I've spent 20 minutes on SSP the last month so don't expect a quick reply from me.

[SHOFEAR]

oh yeah, the reason I'm working such insane hours? Every time I get fustrated and want to go home and crash infront of the TV or laptop I remember every hour I work makes that massive mortage I have (IconII) that much more palatable when I have to start paying it. nooo sympathy

[e909]

Enough sympathy for landlords. They've chosen to own property and rent it out to people and they face either prosperity or not.
Renters (myself included) don't have a choice of if we want a place to live or not.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to charge market rates to rent out my property?

Landlords aren't providing a public service. They decided to purchase a property, they risked a lot, and they should have every right to dictate what they use their property for as well as what they charge.

[The Geographer]

I agree. The market will take care of itself.

People need to fu** off with telling private land owners what they should do with their own property.

Well, except that regulations restricting the market for secondary suites are in fact doing something. For that matter regulations restricting higher density in well-serviced older areas skew the market as well.

To act like this whole thing is just a market issue is ludicrous.

Because the development market is heavily regulated in a way that is stacked against producing affordable housing where it is most appropriate, and is instead designed to use government action to protect the single-family community investments of those who already own. Again, to do nothing is to preserve the status quo, which in itself is doing something that heavily skews the market. I don't know if there would be a rush to build affordable housing in the inner city, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to at least make it possible to build multi-family projects in more areas.

[ScottFromCalgary]

^I agree the market isn't working optimally because there are too many regulations. If we reduce the amount of restrictions on development then it would be easier for developers to respond to the needs of the market.

[The Geographer]

^I agree the market isn't working optimally because there are too many regulations. If we reduce the amount of restrictions on development then it would be easier for developers to respond to the needs of the market.

This is probably true, although I am still of the opinion that government should not only remove the regulations hurting these kinds of development, but also that government incentives or even direct involvement could be used for good as well.

But, if all I got was an allowance of secondary suites and an easing of zoning laws I would still be happy. :)

[Doug]

I prefer moral indignation to heartless greed, thank you very much. :shrug:

Rent controls were supposed to kill rental development. But hey - there's no rent controls, there's a vacancy rate close to zero, and guess what? STILL no rental development! If this is the market working, I'd HATE to see it not working. But you guys can keep on worshipping the market, even though it's pretty obvious to the rest of us that the system is badly broken and needs to be fixed, big time.

The reason that rental construction is negative (due to condo conversions) is that rents are still far too low to cover construction costs. If a unit could hypothetically be built for $200K, the rent would need to be $1K/month simply to cover financing, forget insurance, utilities, maintenance or an attractive rate of return. What could government could do to lower construction costs?

Easing restrictions on secondary suites would help, but that is a municipal issue.

Another possibility would be to reduce skills requirements for constuction trades. This would require some very heavy handed legislation that would be fought be unions and tradespeople associations as it would lower their wages.

[240glt]

Another possibility would be to reduce skills requirements for constuction trades

A very, very bad idea. One only needs to look to the residential construction market to see what type of crap is being built by unqualified workers

[jeffwhit]

^I agree the market isn't working optimally because there are too many regulations. If we reduce the amount of restrictions on development then it would be easier for developers to respond to the needs of the market.

Could you site which regulations are preventing rental development from being built?

[freeweed]

Could you site which regulations are preventing rental development from being built?

I'd go with the basement suite issue, as well as the zoning laws that prevent a lot of cheaper multi-family construction.

Regardless, this issue will really only be solved by a corresponding increase in wages so that people can still afford a place to live. Otherwise a lot of places will be hurting for employees for years to come. Sucks to be them.

I for one don't know how anyone is enticed to move into a market with a half million dollar price tag on a house. You need 2 75k+ salaries just to get in, which is anything but the norm right now. Even the low-end condo market, you need 2 people making nearly 50k each. And rent by all rights is always more expensive than that (landlord needs to make enough to pay his/her mortgage, after all).

[jeffwhit]

I'd go with the basement suite issue, as well as the zoning laws that prevent a lot of cheaper multi-family construction.


Why is anyone loathe to actually explain what zoning laws etc? It seems to me like all those who oppose actual proactive solutions just make vague pronouncements like trained ideological monkeys.

[freeweed]

Why is anyone loathe to actually explain what zoning laws etc? It seems to me like all those who oppose actual proactive solutions just make vague pronouncements like trained ideological monkeys.

Me, because I'm ignorant.

I do know that in most cities you can't just put up endless rows of .. well, row housing. Or multi-storey condos. Or whatever. Most new developments have very strict guidelines as to the amount and location of multi-family housing. Existing developments abide by zoning rules set up whenever they were first constructed. Hence the debate going on in Varsity right now, where a zoning change is required in order to bring in some high-density housing. Gotta keep that single family suburban flavour flowing, right?

Otherwise you'd think it would be a no-brainer - with the value of land being what it is, developers should be trying to cram as many units as possible onto a single parcel of land and turn the most profit.

I always thought it was common knowledge that cities zoned land for different uses. Including a distinction between low, medium and high density residential development. Kind of the Sim City model, if you will.

[lubicon]

The reason that rental construction is negative (due to condo conversions) is that rents are still far too low to cover construction costs. If a unit could hypothetically be built for $200K, the rent would need to be $1K/month simply to cover financing, forget insurance, utilities, maintenance or an attractive rate of return. What could government could do to lower construction costs?
Easing restrictions on secondary suites would help, but that is a municipal issue.

Another possibility would be to reduce skills requirements for constuction trades. This would require some very heavy handed legislation that would be fought be unions and tradespeople associations as it would lower their wages.

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of rebate, tax deferral/reduction etc. program whereby landlords would be able to somehow lower their costs and pass those savings on to tenants in the form of lower rent. Somehow subsidize (or something to that effect) the high cost of construction to encourage developers to build some more low cost units and still be able to make a reasonable return on their investment.

[Kevin_foster]

Look to many cities in Europe and you will find your answer.

[e909]

Look to many cities in Europe and you will find your answer.
Massive slums on the outskirts?

[ScottFromCalgary]

Could you site which regulations are preventing rental development from being built?

I wasn't implying that regulations are preventing rental units from being built. I believe that regulations are preventing the construction of more residential units that would increase the supply of affordable housing. If you are looking for an example of a law that disadvantages rental construction vis a vis condo conversion, I suggest you take a look at the Income Tax Act. I would recommend Part I, Division B, Subdivision C - Taxable Capital Gains and Allowable Capital Losses. Here you will find that individual investors only pay tax at the prescribed rate on 50% of the capital gain earned from the disposition of property. As for rental properties, Part I, Division B, Subdivision B - Income or Loss From a Business or Property states that income from a rental property shall be taxed at the full prescribed rate.

I realize that this has nothing to do with the city or province, but this is an example of a law that disadvantages rental properties.

[Bassic Lab]

Why is anyone loathe to actually explain what zoning laws etc? It seems to me like all those who oppose actual proactive solutions just make vague pronouncements like trained ideological monkeys.

There are many regulations that increase the minimum costs associated with constructing residential units. Many of these are related to safety, if it was allowed we could throw up shanty towns and real slums to address housing affordability. This would only create another residential crises, only in quality instead of supply.

I think inclusionary zoning could work really well, as a density bonus I beleive it would be much more benificial to society than a number of the things we already give density bonuses for. Payment into a fund (with something of a premium for choosing this option) could be an alternative for those developers seeking an "exclusive" project. The units constructed under this program would be transfered to the Calgary Housing Authority to be allocated to those in need.

In single family communities the affordable housing could also be done well. Hidden duplexes (so that the too units appear to be normal much like every other house) would work for families. Singles could get apartments in eight unit biuldings that are designed to look like normal houses, I beleive that last time this issue was discussed here a Winnipeg resident showed examples of this that blended in well and looked nice (I think they might have been called pocket houses, or something to that affect). These would be beneficial options since they would fit in, and allow them to be mixed through out a neighborhood with out causing demonization of the residents.

It might be time to consider measures like transfering the burden of most of the residential market to the state. If rental units can not be produced to a standard that society finds acceptable at a cost that private business finds acceptable then we might want to provide for it as a society. This would mean giving the CHA a wider mandate, providing for the mid market renters as well as the lowest extreme of the market. The high end of the rental market would remain in private hands, as those are the renters that truly have a choice about their living arrangements, something the vast majority of renters do not. This would also mean a better mix of incomes, CHA complexes would be far less like ghettos if they were a mixture of low and mid market renters. Having these complexes spread through out different developments (to the furthest extent possible) would also integrate society to a much higher degree.

I doubt we'd ever manage to acheive a completely integrated city (along lines of class or race) as the rich will always want to live in exclusive areas, but the beauty of that is they can pay for the priviledge and help out the rest of society by doing so.


I do not think that any response should involve biulding, or allowing private companies to biuld, substandard housing. Putting people in excess cargo containers might solve the short term problem of housing them but it would create untold problems. For one thing, cheap housing is cheap for a reason, it is sub par, it does not meet the standard that I think is acceptable for housing. Then there is the more important issue of causing segregation. People in cargo container communities will not be integrated into the wider society, they will be marked by where they live. The children who grow up in such circumstances will face far more obstacles to success than the rest of us. We would be making ghettos and slums which will not benefit the residents or society in the long term, a horrible mistake.

That isn't to say that I'm opposed to all changes to current regulations surrounding certain standards and zoning. For instance the process for converting R1 housing to R2 should be streamlined. That would actually increase affordability. Upzoning R1 and R2 areas into RM-7 would not really solve the problem, the purchase of current housing stock would be an expensive cost added to construction. The resulting units would be expensive, just look at some of the stuff going up now along Edmonton Trail. Re-use of existing biuldings would be considerably cheaper, hence the upzone of R1 to R2, the upgrades to an existing structure would be much cheaper. I'd still support upzoning a lot of inner city land (particularly along certain corridors, 14th, 10th, 4th, Centre, Edmonton Trail streets and 16th, 32nd, McKnight aves in the north, along with 37th, 14th, Elbow Drive, MacLeod streets and 17th (west of the Beltline and International Ave), 33rd/Richmond, 50th, Heritage, Southland aves in the South, I excluded the freeways and such (like Glenmore, Crowchild) as they could never be vibrant pedestrian areas) to RM-7 but not as a manner to provide affordable housing, instead it would be a way to increase density and vibrancy along such corridors and within the city.

[Distill3d]

i agree with Rent Controls. i may be one of the few, but i agree with them.

i mean seriously, why should it cost more then say $600 for a one bedroom apartment anywhere in the city? i for one am unable to justify the cost of rental properties in Calgary. I was living in Temple, in a run down, low income neghborhood, paying $1100/mo PLUS 100% utilities (even though there was a basement suite that paid jack all for utilities), for a tiny 2 bedroom place.

did i mention this is a high crime neighborhood? on a nightly basis, the police were driving around, and on a few occasions, even had violent take downs in front of the house.

I also mention that the landlord didn't care about the place, and even though our refridgerator broke down, and we could not keep food in it for a month, and i put in complaint 28 times in 2 weeks, it had yet to be replaced when i left almost two weeks ago.

so, how many of you would justify the $1100/month rent at THAT place? i could tell other horror stories about rentals from the last year i lived in Calgary. things like toxic mold, leaking roofs, as well as many others...all in different rental properties.

fact is landlords are screwing renters over. and its all because of management companies driving up the cost, then the private landlord who sees what say Boardwalk is charging, says "i can get that here!" and no one is there to stop them. i personally believe civic government should have control over it. like, for a one bedroom place, you can't charge more then 600/mo, for a two bedroom 1000/mo...so on and so forth. however, it'll never happen because of the ignorance of some people towards rental controls.

[ScottFromCalgary]

^So basically your solution is to punish the person who owns the property. Thanks a bunch.

[freeweed]

Yeah, um, rent controls seem fine when you're on one side of the fence.

Fact is, while rent controls can work to a degree, and in the very short term, you must be insane to think anyone can build property at $600/month per unit in Calgary. That would be what, $1200/month for a small house by comparison? Let me know when we can start building houses for $200,000 again. :haha:

Hint: if people could, they would. Second hint: if you think it's cheap enough to maintain a property like that, why not try building something yourself and see what it actually costs? Surely you can do it for less cost than the greedy landlords?

[e909]

Landlords aren't all evil corporations.

"
i mean seriously, why should it cost more then say $600 for a one bedroom apartment anywhere in the city? i for one am unable to justify the cost of rental properties in Calgary. I was living in Temple, in a run down, low income neghborhood, paying $1100/mo PLUS 100% utilities (even though there was a basement suite that paid jack all for utilities), for a tiny 2 bedroom place."

Because maybe I took out a $250,000 mortgage on that property and you have absolutely no right to dictate what I should charge on that property?

A mortgage on a $250,000 property is roughly $1300 a month, assuming a modest downpayment.
Assuming the residence is a condo, add on another $200-300 in condo fees, and don't forget about $1100 in taxes per year. That condo I'm renting out now costs $1600 a month.

I rent that out under market price for $1250 a month. That means I'm paying out of my pocket $4000 a year. Oh yeah, all that income is taxed too.

Sure I eventually gain all of the equity in the condo, but I also assume total risk in the property. If the housing market crashes I'm a hundred thousand in the hole. Not to mention I have to maintain the place, market it, and assume any risks involved with the tenants. Since the place isn't my primary residence, the government wants their cut of the pie if I ever sell.

Now you want me to rent the place out for $600 a month? Why? And you want me to pay my tenants bills? Hilarious.

If rent controls were established I would evict my tenants ASAP and sell the property. No questions asked.

[ScottFromCalgary]

^Good analysis. Any rebuttals from the rent control camp? And "I don't think its fair" doesn't count as a rebuttal.

[Bassic Lab]

Landlords aren't all evil corporations.

Because maybe I took out a $250,000 mortgage on that property and you have absolutely no right to dictate what I should charge on that property?

A mortgage on a $250,000 property is roughly $1300 a month, assuming a modest downpayment.
Assuming the residence is a condo, add on another $200-300 in condo fees, and don't forget about $1100 in taxes per year. That condo I'm renting out now costs $1600 a month.

I rent that out under market price for $1250 a month. That means I'm paying out of my pocket $4000 a year. Oh yeah, all that income is taxed too.

Sure I eventually gain all of the equity in the condo, but I also assume total risk in the property. If the housing market crashes I'm a hundred thousand in the hole. Not to mention I have to maintain the place, market it, and assume any risks involved with the tenants. Since the place isn't my primary residence, the government wants their cut of the pie if I ever sell.

Now you want me to rent the place out for $600 a month? Why? And you want me to pay my tenants bills? Hilarious.

If rent controls were established I would evict my tenants ASAP and sell the property. No questions asked.

I have to laugh at all the people who will be the first to start quoting the constitution the second some one from Ontario mentions resources, yet happily ignore the fact that constitutionally, no one has any rights concerning property.

Not to single you out individually, as I can't recall if you've ever personally made comments regarding provincial resource rights, but there does seem to be something of a link between loving the constitution when it comes to keeping oil revenue and ignoring it when the lack of property rights doesn't suit them.

So remember people, no one has a right to owning property or using the property they own in any which way they like with out interference from the state. So please stop pretending that property rights are inalienable, because they don't exist, no matter how much you wish they did. We've kept that little aspect of democracy that allows the whole to decide how to distribute the means of production. Right now the whole (as expressed through their representatives) thinks its better to allow landlords to raise rents as they please, if the whole were to decide otherwise that is up to them. I would say that democratic rights (which are constitutionally protected) should take a vast precedence over property rights, and our highest governing document agrees.

[Policy Wonk]

Some brothers from Quebec I encountered a few years ago have a ton of rentals in the Ottawa area. I asked them how the make money on the properties.

Simply put, they don't build new units - they never have. They buy buildings when the market is depressed and let the original investor lose their shirt.

[ScottFromCalgary]

I have to laugh at all the people who will be the first to start quoting the constitution the second some one from Ontario mentions resources, yet happily ignore the fact that constitutionally, no one has any rights concerning property.

Not to single you out individually, as I can't recall if you've ever personally made comments regarding provincial resource rights, but there does seem to be something of a link between loving the constitution when it comes to keeping oil revenue and ignoring it when the lack of property rights doesn't suit them.

So remember people, no one has a right to owning property or using the property they own in any which way they like with out interference from the state. So please stop pretending that property rights are inalienable, because they don't exist, no matter how much you wish they did. We've kept that little aspect of democracy that allows the whole to decide how to distribute the means of production. Right now the whole (as expressed through their representatives) thinks its better to allow landlords to raise rents as they please, if the whole were to decide otherwise that is up to them. I would say that democratic rights (which are constitutionally protected) should take a vast precedence over property rights, and our highest governing document agrees.

While it is true that property rights are not entrenched in the constitution, I don't think that there is a section detailing the monthly rents that landlords must charge renters either. What is your point in regards to affordable housing? You have taken the property rights issue and extended it into an argument that is not even concerned with it. No one is debating the government's ability to pass laws imposing rent controls, just the merits of that course of action.

[Policy Wonk]

We've kept that little aspect of democracy that allows the whole to decide how to distribute the means of production.

I would suggest you goto Russia - but that won't fly there either. A private property owner has no obligation to subsudize your lifestyle.

[Distill3d]

well, lets put it this way. we're all tax payers here. we all bitch when the city builds a new homeless shelter because even while bringing home $1900/mo no one can afford to pay rent. then of course, we all say "well we need to do something about rent prices!". but when a perfectly good, albeit short term, solution presents itself (IE: Rent Controls), no one wants to do it.

Landlords aren't all evil corporations

this is where i do not disagree with you. the cost of rentals is up because of management company's like Boardwalk, Mainstreet (though, they do have afforable housing as well), Emerald Management, etc. driving up the cost of rent. so now, you have some one coming into see a place in Forest Lawn thats going for $700/mo saying "wow, i checked out a place a little smaller then this downtown for $1800/mo! what a steal!". so now you have a landlord that says "hey, i can get $1800 for this...", and a bunch of renters that are so happy just to find a place that they take it.

A mortgage on a $250,000 property is roughly $1300 a month, assuming a modest downpayment.
Assuming the residence is a condo, add on another $200-300 in condo fees, and don't forget about $1100 in taxes per year. That condo I'm renting out now costs $1600 a month.

I rent that out under market price for $1250 a month. That means I'm paying out of my pocket $4000 a year. Oh yeah, all that income is taxed too.

if this is your plight, my heart really bleeds for you because you have to pay for your own house out of your own pocket. really, it does. i mean heaven forbid that maybe one house should be enough for you to own, so that maybe someone else has a chance to own another one? i mean i understand that real estate is a wise investment, but dude, seriously.

personally, part of my reason for moving back to Vancouver was if i'm going to pay $1500/mo for rent, i may as well have several beaches, a "lets build the whole transit system, not just two stations at a time" attitude, and a spectacular view to justify it. When Calgary gets that, or comes back to its senses about rent prices, perhaps i'll move back.

[e909]

I was trying to push the point of "if there's nothing in it for the landlord", they won't be landlords.

Sure there's almost no vacancy right now, but at least there are rental units. That would swiftly change if rent controls were imposed.

[ScottFromCalgary]

personally, part of my reason for moving back to Vancouver was if i'm going to pay $1500/mo for rent, i may as well have several beaches, a "lets build the whole transit system, not just two stations at a time" attitude, and a spectacular view to justify it. When Calgary gets that, or comes back to its senses about rent prices, perhaps i'll move back.

Well thankfully you have vacated your residence in Calgary so that someone who wants it more (and hence, is willing to pay more) can make use of it. Sorry that we couldn't hold your hand and subsidize your lifestyle here in Calgary. Hope ya come back :tup:

[Policy Wonk]

rent controls are not a short term solution - or any solution, if you impose rent control the giant sucking sound you will hear is every rental above a crack den being carved up and sold.

Then who wins?

I guess you can celebrate the principle with the true believers assembled around an oil drum bonfire - but what else?

[freeweed]

I would say that democratic rights (which are constitutionally protected) should take a vast precedence over property rights, and our highest governing document agrees.

Of course, it's always easy to vote to take over someone ELSE'S stuff, especially when you don't have anything of your own to lose. Fortunately, the majority of people in this country actually DO own something of value.

Thankfully, we haven't had our October Revolution yet. We all saw how well that one worked out.

[Policy Wonk]

nevermind

[freeweed]

personally, part of my reason for moving back to Vancouver was if i'm going to pay $1500/mo for rent, i may as well have several beaches, a "lets build the whole transit system, not just two stations at a time" attitude, and a spectacular view to justify it. When Calgary gets that, or comes back to its senses about rent prices, perhaps i'll move back.

While I certainly won't begrudge you your choice of cities (I love Vancouver and could happily live there if it wasn't for the humidity), keep in mind that there's a reason people keep moving here, and driving prices up:

Affording $1500/month rent in Calgary, for the same type of work, is usually far easier than in Vancouver.

Prices aren't just some evil conspiracy by rich tophat wearing capitalists. They're high right now because people are making sick amounts of money here. Real estate, and consequently rent, is at an all time high - because for the most part most people can afford it. Sure, we're at a plateau, but the average person, heck, even the majority (to bring back the "democracy" comments from earlier) don't have too much difficulty affording it here.

Wages and real estate prices go hand in hand. And this drives rents. Always has, always will. There's a reason you can get 2 bedroom apartment for $300 in buttfuck, nowhere. ;)

And wait a second - Vancouver rents are as high as they are here?? Why isn't anyone bringing in rent controls? There should be even more of an affordable housing crisis in that city, given the wage differential.

[Doug]

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of rebate, tax deferral/reduction etc. program whereby landlords would be able to somehow lower their costs and pass those savings on to tenants in the form of lower rent. Somehow subsidize (or something to that effect) the high cost of construction to encourage developers to build some more low cost units and still be able to make a reasonable return on their investment.

That would be very difficult to implement. First of all, a problem with all government subsidy/rebate programs is that they are distracting. Instead of building housing, developers waste resources filling out forms and figuring out ways to qualify. The second and more concerning challenge, is that such programs tend to attract scam artists looking to make a quick buck from the government in return for delivering a substandard product. This happened back in the late 70's under the MURB incentive program.

[Policy Wonk]

especially when alot of them were no better than squatters sub-squatting a property they assumed the mortgage of but never paid a dime on.

[Distill3d]

And wait a second - Vancouver rents are as high as they are here?? Why isn't anyone bringing in rent controls? There should be even more of an affordable housing crisis in that city, given the wage differential.

like i said, i can justify why i would want to pay the same amount for rent here as i would in Calgary. its mainly the location, climate, and that i can make more money in Vancouver then Calgary.

as for rent controls, Vancouver (BC in general) has rental laws set in place so that you only have to pay half a months rent as a security deposit. Also if you live outside of the city of Vancouver itself, say in New Westminster, you can still find reasonable rent prices. Right now, i live in a two bedroom apartment in New Westminster for $860/mo...same place, same location, same size in Calgary would run me $1250/mo. Personally, i enjoy saving almost 400/mo.

[Xelebes]

Are you earning the same amount, though?

[freeweed]

Are you earning the same amount, though?

Some people can. More power to 'em if so.

[canucklehead2]

Personally, I think one of the solutions is to offer more housing that is outside the conventional private, for-profit housing market. By offering an alternative, a sustainable base of affordable housing could be maintained and in fact expanded when the demand increases.

And as an added bonus, renters would have more choices as to where they want to live, which would also make private landlords stay competitive in terms of rents so we wouldn't be seeing these massive rent hikes like we are now...

[Bassic Lab]

I would suggest you goto Russia - but that won't fly there either. A private property owner has no obligation to subsudize your lifestyle.

They only own property because the public deems it in the best interests of the whole for them to own property. The second they use that property, in ways contrary to the greater good, society can step in and tell them what to do. That is what a democracy is.


The entire point about this tangent concerning property rights versus collective rights is to counteract the four or so people saying that no one has a right to tell landlords what to do, since this is a democracy the people do have a right to. None of the claims concerning the problems of rent control apply to modern smart controls. Indexing rent to inflation +2% on existing stock (particularly if tied only to existing renters, so once the tenant leaves the next can be charged what ever) will not hurt the business. It will only prevent temporary gouging of tenants in times of extreme tightness in the market. Alberta's Tenancy Act is pathetic in its current form, it offers less protection to tenants than exists in any other province, this is not something to be proud of.

Beyond that I don't really care whether there is rent control or not, I'd rather not tell people what to do with their property unless it is neccasary. Instead (as outlined in the massive post I wrote) I'd prefer to see most of the rental market run through state agencies (the CHA for Calgary) with most of the stock constructed through inclusionary zoning, with various incentives (like density bonuses) for contributing.

[entheosfog]

like i said, i can justify why i would want to pay the same amount for rent here as i would in Calgary. its mainly the location, climate, and that i can make more money in Vancouver then Calgary.

as for rent controls, Vancouver (BC in general) has rental laws set in place so that you only have to pay half a months rent as a security deposit. Also if you live outside of the city of Vancouver itself, say in New Westminster, you can still find reasonable rent prices. Right now, i live in a two bedroom apartment in New Westminster for $860/mo...same place, same location, same size in Calgary would run me $1250/mo. Personally, i enjoy saving almost 400/mo.

I managed to find a $900/month 750+sqft in east Vancouver, within walking distance to the core. Plus I make more at my job in Vancouver as there seems to be less tax taken off my paycheck. I think something that really helped me was, like previously mentioned, you only have to pay half the rent for the damage deposit. Plus, there's a low vacancy rate but way more apartments to choose from. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, just my 2 cents!!

[SFUVancouver]

Vancouver has a 0.1% rental vacancy rate but more than 281,000 apartments to choose from. Those figures are based on the now-very outdated 2001 census Vancouver CMA housing stats (http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/keyfacts/dwelling.htm) 2001 compiled by the GVRD (now Metro Vancouver).

The City of Vancouver alone had more than 131,000 apartments back in 2001 and we've added a whole lot since, though virtually none are purposely rental apartments.

Buying a house in the City of Vancouver is ridiculous with detached homes averaging out at more than $700,000 and condos running upwards of $300,000 and that'll buy you about 450 sq feet. Renting is pretty expensive and nothing all that good is vacant (that nasty 0.1% rental vacancy rate again).

When a place occasionally has an open house to rent it is not unusual to have a line form with dozens of people. That sounded pretty familiar to my Aunt in Calgary. She owns a few properties in Calgary and placed an ad in the paper for a basement suite to rent in the university district. By 8am the morning the ad went out in the papers more than 120 phone messages had been left in response.

[Boris2k7]

Arghhh, this thread is a mess.

Can't help but feel disgusted by the anti-rent controllers. So far the arguments have been entirely self-serving. "I'm a landowner damnit, how dare you tell me what to do!"

Boohoo, like your self-interest means anything to me. After all, that's how this game is played from your hard-righters right? If I were to play by your game, I would have to reply "fascists!" every time you yell "commies!"

Nonsensical bullshit.

Bassic Lab is absolutely correct. Your rights to property aren't constitutionally enshrined. That right is held by the Crown and entrusted to the Government and thus our Municipalities by extension (through the Municipal Government Act).

As such, the laws regulating the development of our cities must fulfill wider societal goals. Part of being a government in Canada is looking after the minority. In this case, renters. Protecting the majority at their expense simply won't do.

So we impose some rent controls. Tie the maximum increases to inflation or some other economic wizardry as you will. Got a problem with that, bastard landowner? Well, we can also slap on a regulation to prevent the conversion of rental units to condos. No need to get fussy over the cap, we can make it flexible to accomodate increasing or decreasing rental stock. Add on other regulations on top of that stuff, or on the other hand relaxations of harmful regulations.

There was an amusing point made about substandard product and regulatory paperwork. Seriously, we have people sleeping in shelters and you are worried about developers filling out paperwork!? And we have a judicial system for a reason. If the developers are doing something bad, get some inspectors out there and sue their pants off! I'm sure those corners you cut will look attractive once you are facing a $30 Million lawsuit.

As if I am going to shed a tear for tyrannical building owners. No new units are getting built, the vacancy rate is already insanely low, nobody is having trouble finding tenants. You are going to sit here and tell me that I should feel sorry for the building owner, when they jack up the price another $300/mo?

Crocodile tears.

Finally, whining about subsidizing people's lifestyles... how ironic. If anything, YOUR lifestyles are being subsidized. How much are spent on roads per year, how much resources are being poured into infrastructure out at the edge of the city? How much aerable land are you consuming with those wide streets and 6000sqft parcels of land? How much resources do you consume a day, with your wasteful lifestyles? I don't expect you to hang your heads in shame, you are probably too busy driving to and from the grocery store so you can pick up your frozen dinners, and driving your kids to soccer practice which are so conveniently located at schools 15Km's away. All paid for through everyone else's taxes, you can thank us later, assholes.

[sync]

As if I am going to shed a tear for tyrannical building owners. No new units are getting built, the vacancy rate is already insanely low, nobody is having trouble finding tenants. You are going to sit here and tell me that I should feel sorry for the building owner, when they jack up the price another $300/mo?




and while they jack the rent up another 300, keep in mind their properties are probably worth 100% more now than 3 years ago.

[freeweed]

I'll just repeat this again, for those that don't seem to grasp the basic concept:

Of course, it's always easy to vote to take over someone ELSE'S stuff, especially when you don't have anything of your own to lose. Fortunately, the majority of people in this country actually DO own something of value.

Thankfully, we haven't had our October Revolution yet. We all saw how well that one worked out.

If you honestly, truly, want to live in a society where you're willing to forego private ownership of everything, and just let other people take from you as they please, then by all means - go create one.

Maybe we should make any private property ownership illegal. That would solve the rent problem for sure, right? Or is it JUST landlords who are evil, but everything YOU personally own is untouchable?

Incidentally, it's funny to watch a pro-rent control argument be played from both sides. On the one hand, we live in a democracy so if the majority say so, they CAN dictate to other what is to be done with their property. On the other hand, our society has a responsibility to protect the minority from the majority. Somehow both of these reasonings lead to rent control.

I have a better word for it: entitlement.

For the record, I'm not a landlord, nor would I ever be one. I know many, and most of them aren't exactly rolling in dough. Unless you own dozens of properties, you're still working a day job, plus spending most of your nights dealing with your various rental properties. Combine that with a disturbingly high rate of bad tenants who seem to use their sense of entitlement to destroy anything that's not theirs, and oftentimes you end up with a rental property where the past YEAR'S rent hasn't even covered the damages caused by the tenants. Never mind the fact that in a depressed rental market (like Calgary had for what, 15 years almost?) rents are lower than mortgage payments, so a landlord is often losing money even if there's no damage.

[canucklehead2]

Everyone please keep things civil. I think this is an important thread to have. Anyway, now that I've finished playing shrill moralistic schoolmarm for a moment, I do think there are good points to be made on both sides of the issue, especially when it comes to the rent control debate. Personally I don't think rent control is good or noble, when it comes to the idea of placing an arbatrary cap on the free market.

Having said that I do think so form of limit in needed in the short term because for many folks they just can't swallow a massive rent increase of several hundred dollars a month, especially if they are on a fixed income like a pension or government assistance. What are you going to say to someone who has worked all their lives to earn a meager pension lives a simple lifestyle in a rented one bedroom and who is now facing homelessness? You get what you deserve?

From the people I know personally who are in such a situation, there is no way they are suddenly going to be able to find an extra $400 a month to rent their apartment. It's just not going to happen. And if you can't find anything cheaper, which is true in 99% of the cases I have seen so far, where are they to go? Tent City? The River Valley?

All I can say is I think blame for the current situation rest almost exclusively with the various levels of government and to a lesser extent to the people who elected them for an acute lack of planning for an economic boom in the first place. Either it was extreme naitivity or incompetance or both that leds us here. This may come as a shock to some of you who have long called me a commie (which doesn't make me mad in anyway, though socialist or social-democrat is certainly more accurate) I don't blame the landlords for raising their rents in theory because it is a free market and supply and demand and the demand is certainly there to for landlords to be able to get more money for their real estate. I do think however that many property owners are forgetting that their tenants are in fact real people and not just blips on a spreadsheet, which I think is so often true when an economic boom hits.

[YYCguys]

At the risk of getting eaten alive in this thread (woooheee, it was a roller coaster read thus far!), I'd like to throw my 2 bits in. I think a great solution would be buy a vacant school and convert it into suites. There is land around it ready to landscape as a bonus. The Board of Education makes some money off of the sale and people get a home! Seems everyone can win with this solution!

[freeweed]

I do think however that many property owners are forgetting that their tenants are in fact real people and not just blips on a spreadsheet, which I think is so often true when an economic boom hits.

I read somewhere that Boardwalk (big property management company, I assume) has taken a self-imposed rent control stance of limiting rent increases to once a year, and $150/month max. So not everyone is out to kill the little guy. Yeah, it's still a hefty increase, but the cost of *everything* is up lately - should we regulate every last price just to make sure people on fixed incomes don't get in trouble? Hey wait, maybe I can use this as an argument to stop tax increases. :haha:

That being said, what ever happened to government-owned or subsidized housing? I know CMHC (or one of the many helper agencies) used to own hundreds if not thousands of units/buildings in most Canadian cities. And not just for the legitimately helpless (seniors, disabled folks) either - it used to be easy enough to qualify for this type of housing, even if you had a semi-well paying job, and a newer car in your parking lot.

I'm actually curious what renters are finding the market to be like these days - I keep hearing "$1500/month for a 1 bedroom" but that seems extreme. I personally know many people who are paying less than $1000/month for rent right now. And with an effective minmum wage of $15/hr in this city if you're willing to work, they all seem to be managing ok, if living with fewer luxuries than they used to...

Is there any sort of "average/median rents" information published that's actually current?

[chenmau]

I think one of the biggest problems in Canadian society is the unwillingness of Canadians to move from city to city and from province to province. There are much more affordable places for people to live in Canada, yet everyone feels that they need to stay exactly where they are. It’s simple: If a city/town/province is too expensive for you to live in, then move to a more affordable place.

[You Need A Thneed]

I'm actually curious what renters are finding the market to be like these days - I keep hearing "$1500/month for a 1 bedroom" but that seems extreme. I personally know many people who are paying less than $1000/month for rent right now. And with an effective minmum wage of $15/hr in this city if you're willing to work, they all seem to be managing ok, if living with fewer luxuries than they used to...

Is there any sort of "average/median rents" information published that's actually current?

In the house that me and my wife just moved out of, we were paying $850/month at the end. That's for the whole detatched house. It was a pretty good deal. The owner is trying to sell it, but its the kind of house where I can't see the owner whating to live there, they'd buy it just to rent it out. However, with it listed for around 300k, even with a 25% downpayment, the owner would have to charge about $1500 a month in rent just to cover the mortgage payments and the property tax, never mind make any money.

We just bought our first house, and lots of the listings I saw showed that tenants were in the building, the problem is that no one could afford to buy the house and keep the tenants there for the amount that they were paying - at least no one could afford it unless they were ok with losing money.

And that's why rents go up when housing prices go up, it's just for that reason, the average person who buys places up to rent them out has to charge more to cover costs.

[freeweed]

I think one of the biggest problems in Canadian society is the unwillingness of Canadians to move from city to city and from province to province. There are much more affordable places for people to live in Canada, yet everyone feels that they need to stay exactly where they are. It’s simple: If a city/town/province is too expensive for you to live in, then move to a more affordable place.

I agree with your sentiment (and the inverse - moving somewhere for a better opportunity/lifestyle is something far too few people are willing to do), but keep in mind that moving can be expensive as all hell. Then again, I guess if you're truly too poor to afford your rent, you don't own a lot of personal possessions so moving should be cheap? (Tongue firmly in cheek with that last comment).

[chenmau]

Yes, I see your point. But short term pain for long term gain.

[Policy Wonk]

Arghhh, this thread is a mess.

Can't help but feel disgusted by the anti-rent controllers. So far the arguments have been entirely self-serving. "I'm a landowner damnit, how dare you tell me what to do!"

...

So we impose some rent controls. Tie the maximum increases to inflation or some other economic wizardry as you will. Got a problem with that, bastard landowner? Well, we can also slap on a regulation to prevent the conversion of rental units to condos.

Well the above is the very essense of capitalism - I am sorry you were born in Canada in the 80's. You have to get used to the fact outside of the healthcare system the welfare state is DEAD and it is never comming back and neither are social democrats.

As for your suggestion below - when confronted with such measures in the United States many landlords simply opted to demolish their buildings, or even burn them to the ground.

If you take it from difficult to impossible to make money on rental properties - the rental properties will either vanish or allowed to fall into total disrepair.

So then you can celebrate the principle with the true believers assembled around an oil drum bonfire because you will be homeless.

[Wooster]

^People often confuse first generation, hard rent controls with much more flexible, landlord friendly second generation controls. Second generation controls have proved quite successful without the kinds of consequences you have talked about.

[The Geographer]

Why do people act like private property is a natural and objective extension of themselves? At some point determining property ownership, while largely based on merit, is an arbitrary process. The free market is not perfectly accurate in determining who creates what value (and by extension - somehow - who owns what material), especially since it is largely based on who already owned property, which was given to them by a grandparent, who was given it by the government in some random statute, who took the stuff from the Natives, who somehow took ownership of the whole continent the moment they stepped over the Bering Strait. There is a reason the crown has so much power over property.

Unless of course someone here is one of those silly followers of Ayn Rand who somehow feel that material possessions (difficult to define given the transience of matter and energy) are an objective extension of one's work.

NOTE: I also know that property extends beyond land, but similar problems of fuzziness and arbitrariness exist with all property.

[Policy Wonk]

Why do people act like private property is a natural and objective extension of themselves?

because that is bedrock of a liberal economy?

Didn't you guys have to read Hobbes and Locke in university? or is it just Marx and Che these days?

[The Geographer]

because that is bedrock of a liberal economy?

Didn't you guys have to read Hobbes and Locke in university? or is it just Marx and Che these days?

Ya, but it isn't an objective extension of a person, because it is impossible define an ownership relationship between people and matter (which isn't even in a constant state as it exchanges energy and matter with its surroundings). To claim to have an objective ownership is to prove your own foolishness.

And it has nothing to do with communism, just common sense. The bedrock of the liberal economy is the government's subjective doling out of property rights and then allowance of a market mechanism to run its course as a tool. Believe it or not, in the real world the mixed economy is king, and markets are based on an imperfect premise.

[Distill3d]

my question here, out of everyone taking part in this discussion, who rents and who owns?

i think we'll find most of the renters in the Pro-Rent Control camp and most of the owners in the Anti-Rent control camp. problem with that is, if more owners are in the anti-rent control camp, nothing will get done about it.

plus no level of government has determined which level of government should be dealing with this. personally, if you ask me, screw the provincial government. Calgary should deal with Calgary's problems with renters, and Edmonton should deal with Edmonton's. you can't have the province going ahead and saying "this is the minimum or maximum amount you can charge for rent" and have it cover the whole province because then you get some landlord in Bassano screaming "WOO HOO! I'm gonna pay off my house at the end of the year!!!". subsequently, he jacks up the price of his rent to that similar of Calgary. then we have the whole thread "Solutions to Bassano Alberta's lack of affordable housing...", the solution is best left to the municipalities.

[The Geographer]

For the record, I am skeptical about rent controls. I feel that if the government wants people to afford rental units, it should take a greater responsibility for building and running them.

Though, I think density bonusing is another promising route.

[freeweed]

Ya, but it isn't an objective extension of a person, because it is impossible define an ownership relationship between people and matter (which isn't even in a constant state as it exchanges energy and matter with its surroundings). To claim to have an objective ownership is to prove your own foolishness.

And it has nothing to do with communism, just common sense. The bedrock of the liberal economy is the government's subjective doling out of property rights and then allowance of a market mechanism to run its course as a tool. Believe it or not, in the real world the mixed economy is king, and markets are based on an imperfect premise.

Well really, if you're going to start talking pure theoreticals (like energy and mater being in transient states).. property ownership by definition is and can only ever be something agreed upon by society. At a higher level, it can only ever be secured by use of force. I can claim ownership of the moon and quite frankly you cannot prove me wrong - unless you're able to wrest my claim from me.

I think most people, however, understand that property ownership (of any kind) is a mutual agreement within society. It's a *concept*, nothing more.

So why do we bother?

Take anything tangible that you currently "own". Anything. Your house. Your car. The clothes off your back. The computer you used to type your comments with. Your dog. Anything.

Is it legally and/or morally and/or ethically justified for the rest of us, as a society, to tell you what you can do with it, or worst case (from your perspective), take it from you? In some cases, yes. In others, no. What are the consequences of such a decision?

The Randian philosophy is that short of 100% pure communism (where no one ever "owns" anything individually) any appropriation of other people's property is hypocrasy. Unless you personally are willing to give up anything of yours, saying that we should take SOMEONE ELSE'S "stuff" is hypocritical. Or at least morally questionable.

Human nature is to always want other people's stuff for our own uses. Some of us hope we've grown beyond the caveman days. After all, why don't we just vote tomorrow that all rich people should be stripped of everything they own above and beyond the "median" wealth level (hell, they don't NEED it, right?), and distribute that amongst everyone else? Because we realize as a society that that is not a good long term solution.

[freeweed]

my question here, out of everyone taking part in this discussion, who rents and who owns?

i think we'll find most of the renters in the Pro-Rent Control camp and most of the owners in the Anti-Rent control camp.

You hit the nail on the head. That's how these sorts of issues settle out nearly all the time.

I think you'll find that most people in the pro-tax camp are those with the least amount of money, and vice-versa.

It's human nature to look out for your own self-interest. It's the hallmark of a decent society when we can come up with a compromise that's mutually beneficial to all.

To be honest though, even when I was a renter I HATED rent controls. But that's because I naively think I'm able to see beyond the end of my own nose, and appreciate the bigger picture. Then again, I never was faced with a $300/month rent increase, so who's to say how I would react in those circumstances. :shrug:

[Boris2k7]

Well the above is the very essense of capitalism - I am sorry you were born in Canada in the 80's. You have to get used to the fact outside of the healthcare system the welfare state is DEAD and it is never comming back and neither are social democrats.

How ad hominem of you. If you want to play it that way, fine. I don't care about your ideology or what you think of "capitalism." Guess what, pal, we don't live in a "capitalist" society. Nobody ever has. But I guess you can still cling to outdated 19th Century economic models if you want.

As for your suggestion below - when confronted with such measures in the United States many landlords simply opted to demolish their buildings, or even burn them to the ground.

If you take it from difficult to impossible to make money on rental properties - the rental properties will either vanish or allowed to fall into total disrepair.

So then you can celebrate the principle with the true believers assembled around an oil drum bonfire because you will be homeless.

Based on what rent controls? What examples do you have? I have yet to see any proof that landowners are losing money on rental properties. And yet more of your crap about the "oil drum bonfire" ... oh wait, you must be referring to Alberta's post-peak oil economy, right?

[freeweed]

And yet more of your crap about the "oil drum bonfire" ... oh wait, you must be referring to Alberta's post-peak oil economy, right?

:jester: :jester: :jester:

Regardless of if or how we may differ on opinions sometimes, you can be one funny dude.

:worship:

[The Geographer]

Well really, if you're going to start talking pure theoreticals (like energy and mater being in transient states).. property ownership by definition is and can only ever be something agreed upon by society. At a higher level, it can only ever be secured by use of force. I can claim ownership of the moon and quite frankly you cannot prove me wrong - unless you're able to wrest my claim from me.

I think most people, however, understand that property ownership (of any kind) is a mutual agreement within society. It's a *concept*, nothing more.

So why do we bother?

Take anything tangible that you currently "own". Anything. Your house. Your car. The clothes off your back. The computer you used to type your comments with. Your dog. Anything.

Is it legally and/or morally and/or ethically justified for the rest of us, as a society, to tell you what you can do with it, or worst case (from your perspective), take it from you? In some cases, yes. In others, no. What are the consequences of such a decision?

Actually, I think you and I are about on the same page, and this was my ultimate point. Property and the market are societal constructs that don't have an absolute, objective certainty to them. My posts were not a rebuttal against the idea that government and society should be sensitive and cautious towards relinquishing certain property rights, but was a rebuttal against those who don't recognize that property is a somewhat arbitrary societal construct.

Good post on your part. :tup:

[Elwood]

Originally Posted by chenmau
I think one of the biggest problems in Canadian society is the unwillingness of Canadians to move from city to city and from province to province. There are much more affordable places for people to live in Canada, yet everyone feels that they need to stay exactly where they are. It’s simple: If a city/town/province is too expensive for you to live in, then move to a more affordable place.

It's really not quite that simple - you need a job that suits you in order to do this. I love Canada but we are somewhat limited in our options of choosing where to live, especially compared to the USA.

Have a look at the following website and tell me that you don't envy the choices that Americans have when a change in life is tugging at you:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/

I suppose it's comparing apples and oranges due to the population difference between the two countries but I hate the idea that I need to move to Flin Flon or St. John, NB (beautiful but depressed) in order to find affordable housing. Hell, I can buy a huge home in Houston for $170k if I were a Yank. And then move on to Atlanta or Portland after that.

[Distill3d]

I think one of the biggest problems in Canadian society is the unwillingness of Canadians to move from city to city and from province to province. There are much more affordable places for people to live in Canada, yet everyone feels that they need to stay exactly where they are. It’s simple: If a city/town/province is too expensive for you to live in, then move to a more affordable place

how the hell did i miss this gem of a post?

okay, so in the entire time i lived in Calgary, i think i'm one of the 17 people i came across that was actually born and raised in Calgary. Several individuals, including my ex-roommate (a Haligonian) and my mother (a Vancouverite) were from other provinces. even fewer were from other spots in Alberta. in fact the people living downstairs from us were misplaced Torontonians.

fact is, most of the reason there are fewer rentals in Calgary (and other parts) is because others are moving here in rapid numbers in hopes of making more money. from what i've been made aware of, there are very few jobs on the Canadian east coast, so a large number of them move here to work in the oil sands, or do our manual labour jobs. then they move their families out. benefits us all in many ways, however, the downside is as mentioned. there is now a lack of affordable accomidations.

i'm not blaming it solely on others moving to Calgary from outside the province or city as reason for a lack of accomidations. it does weigh heavily into the factors though.

[entheosfog]

Vancouver has a 0.1% rental vacancy rate but more than 281,000 apartments to choose from. Those figures are based on the now-very outdated 2001 census Vancouver CMA housing stats (http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/keyfacts/dwelling.htm) 2001 compiled by the GVRD (now Metro Vancouver).

The City of Vancouver alone had more than 131,000 apartments back in 2001 and we've added a whole lot since, though virtually none are purposely rental apartments.

Buying a house in the City of Vancouver is ridiculous with detached homes averaging out at more than $700,000 and condos running upwards of $300,000 and that'll buy you about 450 sq feet. Renting is pretty expensive and nothing all that good is vacant (that nasty 0.1% rental vacancy rate again).

When a place occasionally has an open house to rent it is not unusual to have a line form with dozens of people. That sounded pretty familiar to my Aunt in Calgary. She owns a few properties in Calgary and placed an ad in the paper for a basement suite to rent in the university district. By 8am the morning the ad went out in the papers more than 120 phone messages had been left in response.

I'd rather be looking for a rental in Vancouver than Calgary. There were total dumps in Vancouver for more than I got for mine, but it can be a crap shoot holding out for a better place. There were only 2 other couples interested in my newly reno'd place and I guess we won the landlords over with our charm :D

But, yeah, buying a house here...crazy expensive!!

EDIT: BTW, I found stats saying Vancouver's vacancy rate is around 0.9% as of June 2007.

[The Geographer]

He was probably thinking 1.0% ;)

[Alberta Bound]

I'm actually curious what renters are finding the market to be like these days - I keep hearing "$1500/month for a 1 bedroom" but that seems extreme.
As someone new to the area (Calgary), I set out to find a place to rent and had a lease signed in no time. After looking at a few places in one afternoon, I had callbacks from a number of landlords/management companies wanting to rent to me. I was able to negotiate on the place I wanted down $100/mo to $1600/mo for a detached 3Bdr house in the northwest. Relative to what I would pay to rent a similiar place on the east coast, its actually not that expensive. I would likely pay around $1200-1300/mo for a comparable place here. I will a little surprised at all this because I had heard horror stories about how difficult it was to find a place to rent in Calgary.

I suppose it's comparing apples and oranges due to the population difference between the two countries but I hate the idea that I need to move to Flin Flon or St. John, NB (beautiful but depressed) in order to find affordable housing.

Its not that bad lol :(
Offtopic but the unemployment rate in Saint John as of August in 4.8%... lower than most cities in Ontario and billions of dollars of energy projects underway or on a 2-3 year horizon for startup.

[freeweed]

As someone new to the area (Calgary), I set out to find a place to rent and had a lease signed in no time. After looking at a few places in one afternoon, I had callbacks from a number of landlords/management companies wanting to rent to me. I was able to negotiate on the place I wanted down $100/mo to $1600/mo for a detached 3Bdr house in the northwest. Relative to what I would pay to rent a similiar place on the east coast, its actually not that expensive. I would likely pay around $1200-1300/mo for a comparable place here. I will a little surprised at all this because I had heard horror stories about how difficult it was to find a place to rent in Calgary.

Wow. I'd have figured $2000 or more for a complete 3Bdr house in this city. The NW also tends to be a bit pricier.

So for 3 people sharing the place, you'd be looking at just over $500/month each. Or about what I paid for shared accomodations in Winnipeg 10 years ago, when minimum wage there was less than HALF what I could make at Tim's in Calgary right now.

Affordable housing crisis, indeed.

[Boris2k7]

Wow. I'd have figured $2000 or more for a complete 3Bdr house in this city. The NW also tends to be a bit pricier.

So for 3 people sharing the place, you'd be looking at just over $500/month each. Or about what I paid for shared accomodations in Winnipeg 10 years ago, when minimum wage there was less than HALF what I could make at Tim's in Calgary right now.

Affordable housing crisis, indeed.

Mind you, he has to live out in the suburbs, and probably owns a private vehicle as well. Those prices aren't happening anywhere that we want them to.

[chenmau]

how the hell did i miss this gem of a post?

okay, so in the entire time i lived in Calgary, i think i'm one of the 17 people i came across that was actually born and raised in Calgary. Several individuals, including my ex-roommate (a Haligonian) and my mother (a Vancouverite) were from other provinces. even fewer were from other spots in Alberta. in fact the people living downstairs from us were misplaced Torontonians.

fact is, most of the reason there are fewer rentals in Calgary (and other parts) is because others are moving here in rapid numbers in hopes of making more money. from what i've been made aware of, there are very few jobs on the Canadian east coast, so a large number of them move here to work in the oil sands, or do our manual labour jobs. then they move their families out. benefits us all in many ways, however, the downside is as mentioned. there is now a lack of affordable accomidations.

i'm not blaming it solely on others moving to Calgary from outside the province or city as reason for a lack of accomidations. it does weigh heavily into the factors though.

My experience is much the same as yours. Where I work, there are less than 30% of Calgary born people.

My point was that sure, people will move to boom town Alberta, but won't necessarily move to Nova Scotia. There are plenty of opportunities on the East Coast, where cost of living is less. Same thing goes for Sask. Both these places are great for retirees on fixed incomes. There is choice out there, Canadians only seem to look at the choices in their immediate area.

[Boris2k7]

My experience is much the same as yours. Where I work, there are less than 30% of Calgary born people.

My point was that sure, people will move to boom town Alberta, but won't necessarily move to Nova Scotia. There are plenty of opportunities on the East Coast, where cost of living is less. Same thing goes for Sask. Both these places are great for retirees on fixed incomes. There is choice out there, Canadians only seem to look at the choices in their immediate area.

You make it sound like just packing up and moving is easy. That isn't true for the elderly or for people on low incomes, who are hurt the most by this housing crisis.

I've lived here since I was 6 years old, and you guys are basically saying that if I can't afford, I should just leave.

[chenmau]

I agree that moving is stressful and difficult. For the most part it is a short term stress that will ensure that they thrive over the long term because they can better afford to live in their new location.

[Boris2k7]

Perhaps it also offends my senses as a planner. I tend to think of my city as a home, not a hotel. Hell, it totally justifies putting up total crapboxes to stuff people in if they are only going to stay around for a few years to appreciate it. No sense in putting up anything that has any sense of permanence. Why don't we just set up caravans and move around the landscape as nomads!?

Or on the other hand, we can just make cities for rich people! Sure, they'll be pretty disfunctional, such as labour shortages, high inflation rates, infrastructure crises, etc... oh wait, we already have that.

[chenmau]

I've lived here since I was 6 years old, and you guys are basically saying that if I can't afford, I should just leave.

It's not like you would be banished from here forever. You could come back when you can better afford to live here - maybe at some point you make more money, or Calgary becomes more affordable.