How would you solve the housing affordability crisis?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But how does it help to have something be domestically owned if it doesn't even exist? I mean, isn't it be better to have foreign financing and actually be able to fund the developments rather than to keep everything domestic and not have as many units to begin with?

Personally I think foreign ownership vs domestic ownership is important in terms of the economy as a whole, since foreign ownership dominates manufacturers, retailers, the natural resource sector etc. but I'm not sure why it's more important for residential real estate than anything else.

Because I have no knowledge on how foreign ownership affects other sectors of the economy.

What you seem to be alluding to there is that without foreign demand there wouldn't be the demand to build housing economically at all, which doesn't make sense to me. I think markets like Vancouver and Toronto would do just fine in sustaining their own housing supply without additional foreign capital. Development would still occur, just not nearly at the same pace and that's just fine.

I've said this in the Vancouver section, but I don't get excited seeing new condo towers go up anymore, no matter how nice they are. They are reminder after reminder of the foreign interests that prevent existing residents from being able to afford decent housing for themselves and live a normal life. I know many of the units being built will be pre-sold in China or involved in money-laundering schemes, while only serving to push locals into smaller, dingier or further-out housing. I can't get excited about that.

[MolsonExport]

put dc denizen in charge of canada. He's wreck the place in 10 minutes flat with his bile.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Because I have no knowledge on how foreign ownership affects other sectors of the economy.

What you seem to be alluding to there is that without foreign demand there wouldn't be the demand to build housing economically at all, which doesn't make sense to me. I think markets like Vancouver and Toronto would do just fine in sustaining their own housing supply without additional foreign capital. Development would still occur, just not nearly at the same pace and that's just fine.

Well I'm sure you won't deny that it would significantly reduce demand? Isn't that the whole basis of your assertion that foreign buyers are driving up prices? So yes, if demand for condos drops significantly, then prices drop significantly, and therefore significantly less money is pouring into development. And how can you say that less development would be fine while at the same time complaining that all the empty units owned by foreigners is what's causing the high rents to begin with? Wouldn't having those units not exist have the same effect on rents as having them sit empty? Either way they aren't adding any supply to the market. Seems to me that the only thing that would lower rents would be to have them exist and available to renters.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Well I'm sure you won't deny that it would significantly reduce demand? Isn't that the whole basis of your assertion that foreign buyers are driving up prices? So yes, if demand for condos drops significantly, then prices drop significantly, and therefore significantly less money is pouring into development. And how can you say that less development would be fine while at the same time complaining that all the empty units owned by foreigners is what's causing the high rents to begin with? Wouldn't having those units not exist have the same effect on rents as having them sit empty? Either way they aren't adding any supply to the market. Seems to me that the only thing that would lower rents would be to have them exist and available to renters.

Of course it will reduce demand, I just don't think it will reduce the demand to zero. The demand will return to being predominantly local and supply will be built to accommodate this new lower demand, but the supply won't disappear; it will simply lower along with the demand.

But I see where we have our disconnect now - you're focused much more on rent in this discussion than I am. So if referring to rent, you're absolutely right. Eliminating foreign ownership won't ease the rental crisis in the city because there will still be a lack of rental supply. And you're right that the foreign-funded empty condos that are being built are theoretically an enormous asset if they can be used as rental stock by encouraging their owners to rent them out. Now the current such "incentive," where you're charged a 15% tax for keeping your unit empty, seems to not be overly effective, but maybe there is a magic number where encouraging renting out property could be a massive boon to the rental market here.

The original post just didn't specify rental, and to me actually appeared to be more directed towards the expenses of home ownership, so I was speaking more towards that. So what I meant is that in having property available to buy, it won't matter if foreign ownership is eliminated because there will still be a certain amount of local demand to spur supply.

If I'm to separate improving affordability in home ownership and renting more explicitly, I'll reaffirm my belief in eliminating foreign ownership to make buying homes more accessible to locals. If home ownership is more accessible, there will be less demand on rental services. There are people in Vancouver and Toronto who rent but would be able to afford their own homes in many other cities.

But my second original point did actually refer to renters: have the government take back a bigger role in providing rental housing just as it did in the 1970s. The private market clearly does a terrible job of providing adequate rental housing so the government must make up the difference. I see your logic in maintaining empty foreign suites to use as rental units, but having them clearly hasn't helped all that much. Governments have to get back to creating some of the supply. And as I said in my first post, if purchasing a home was cheaper, the demand for rentals would actually be easier to meet as fewer people would be priced out of ownership.

[GreaterMontréal]

no enough rentals. only 100,000 in Vancouver. more than 500,000 in Montréal. If there is a shortage of rentals in Vancouver or Toronto, it's not international investors fault.

[casper]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

no enough rentals. only 100,000 in Vancouver. more than 500,000 in Montréal. If there is a shortage of rentals in Vancouver or Toronto, it's not international investors fault.

My experience is between SK and BC. IN SASKATCHEWAN condo boards can nor restrict the ability if a condo owner to rent out their unit. In BC you can have such restrictions.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by casper

My experience is between SK and BC. IN SASKATCHEWAN condo boards can nor restrict the ability if a condo owner to rent out their unit. In BC you can have such restrictions.

Yep, and they're common.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

no enough rentals. only 100,000 in Vancouver. more than 500,000 in Montréal. If there is a shortage of rentals in Vancouver or Toronto, it's not international investors fault.

I'm curious to do a quick survey among people here. In your own city, when is the last time significant rental-exclusive stock as been added to the market?

In Calgary, unitl 2014, we had continually declining new rental stock added to the market for decades. It wasn't until the downturn here and no one was buying condos that significant rental projects really took off. They have had a moderating effect on rental prices, and balance the market as Calgary continues to grow.

What about Vancouver? Montreal? Toronto? How many buildings are made exclusively for rental these days?

I think we should be focused on sustainable urban planning, such that we necessitate rental-exclusive stock to balance rents. The rest will follow. We need to mandate 1-2-3 bedroom rental stock added every single year in line with population growth, to give residents a wide variety of options, and this is the mechanism that can balance prices.

If people want to enter a high stakes high risk game of chicken in the real estate market, that is their business. As long as there are moderating forces on rents that allow people to live in a city on the prevailing wages, that whole other game of chicken in real estate doesn't matter.

Unfortunately, to do this realistically in places like Vancouver, entire neighbourhoods zoned for SFH would have to change, and the huge resistance against that combined with the perpetual "foreign buyer boogeyman" means the conversation has turned into a "foreign buyer versus density" debate, instead of a "foreign buyer and density" debate - so nothing gets done.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I'm curious to do a quick survey among people here. In your own city, when is the last time significant rental-exclusive stock as been added to the market?

In Calgary, unitl 2014, we had continually declining new rental stock added to the market for decades. It wasn't until the downturn here and no one was buying condos that significant rental projects really took off. They have had a moderating effect on rental prices, and balance the market as Calgary continues to grow.

Something very similar is actually happening in Ottawa.

During the late 2000s the massive expansion in the public sector at that time caused a huge spike in housing demand in Ottawa and unlike in earlier booms, the city was actually pushing hard for intensification, so a huge number of condo developers entered the city and proposed new projects. Then Harper's majority came around and federal downsizing started and the case for these projects started to fall apart and by 2015 there was a massive glut of condo proposals. Then the tech sector took off and many millennials were attracted to the city. Developers responded by converting many of their projects to rentals and now there's a boom in rental construction, especially along the future LRT line. Ontario's recent expansion of rent controls seems to have not been much of a deterrent; numerous projects have launched AFTER the policy change was announced.

This is the first significant wave of rental construction in Ottawa since the 1970s.

[casper]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I'm curious to do a quick survey among people here. In your own city, when is the last time significant rental-exclusive stock as been added to the market?
...

Before living in Victoria I lived in Saskatoon.

Saskatoon had a historical glut on the market.

Some of the REITs like Boardwalk were purchasing rental buildings from small operators. Boardwalk came in with a professional management team and could actually improve the quality of the rental building will still keeping rents affordable.

There was a recent massive expansion of condos. I purchased a new condo while still under construction in Saskatoon around 2010. Only option as anything already built was subject to a bidding war in most cases. I was on the condo board. At least half of the units were owned by inventors and rented out. The property management company said that was pretty common for new built condos. Some of these were numbered companies out of Ontario others were individuals who had a little bit of money to invest and wanted to own and rent out something. In Saskatchewan basic property rights are such that condo boards can't restrict your ability to rent your own property, unlike in BC where property owned rights can be taken away by a condo board.

Victoria has a lot of new social rental housing being built by housing societies (these operate at arms length from the government). On the higher end there are are a number of condo developments on the go.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

no enough rentals. only 100,000 in Vancouver. more than 500,000 in Montréal. If there is a shortage of rentals in Vancouver or Toronto, it's not international investors fault.

It it is because building rentals isn't viable if foreign buyers have driven up the cost of land to ridiculous levels. For example the SFH that sold for $11 million this year when it sold for just $5 mil last year. And then there's the issue of places like Burnaby demolishing thousands of affordable rental units to make room for luxury high rise condos sold mainly to the Chinese.

[GreaterMontréal]

And then there's the issue of places like Burnaby demolishing thousands of affordable rental units to make room for luxury high rise condos sold mainly to the Chinese.

that's not acceptable, and that would not fly here in Montréal. how can this be socially acceptable ?

[urbandreamer]

Give free land to the first 100,000 people that want to live in a brand new city somewhere in the North.

Ban urban planners

Eliminate restrictive zoning

Build 100,000 social housing units each year for the next 30 years

Tax condo flippers 1000%

Legalize self driving bedroom communities.

Ban airbnb ... the main reason rental supply is so low in Toronto.

[urbandreamer]

Originally Posted by YannickTO

If we didn't have immigration, many stores and fast food chains would simply close their doors. Right now, in many parts of Quebec, some fast food restaurants are closed during the night (some McDonalds and Tim Hortons) because there's no labour to hire. Shortage of employees everywhere. Nobody wants to work at minimum wage (11.25$ in Quebec), and if it stays that low, it won't attract anyone born here to apply for these jobs. We need these newcomers looking for a headstart and a starter job. There's a shortage of students who apply to work on the weekends, shortage of newly retired workforce looking for a part-time job after their career, shortage of adults looking for full-time jobs (the salary and the benefits are not attractive).

I see this as a public good: less fast food less diabetes, heart attacks and general health care costs? Locals will live longer healthier lives. Let the robots take over any remaining demand.

[urbandreamer]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

That's great - but (and this is in agreement with your point, not in contrast to it - just stating another way) the smaller province should be more attractive if both exist. Three years in a small province, or five anywhere else. If we get rid of the "anywhere else", then it should be five. I don't want to make it harder for people who come here, live here, work here, to become citizens.

But people will stay here if we keep them here long enough. We have Syrian refugees here who are cultivating farmland from our hills. And the province is changing its agricultural/crown land rules to make it easier for them to do this. Five years from now, and they become citizens? They're staying here. And we need them. We need more arrangements like that. Even the Syrian barbers... everyone here is getting their beards threaded and eyebrows microbladed. All of the Syrian trends are just the cool thing that you do... whether you're a 17-year-old at a downtown high school or a suburban, married 40-something. Even outside the capital: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...rber-1.3591382 They've already completely replaced the local trends.

We need to do everything we can to make such people stay not just in Canada generally, but specifically, here. In the "middle of nowhere" by comparative Canadian importance.

Does this prove the theory that given a small enough population, a new tribe can quickly change an old populations demographics/behaviours etc? So if 100,000 Torontonians moved to NFLD, St John's would just become another ward?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

that's not acceptable, and that would not fly here in Montréal. how can this be socially acceptable ?

Because there is zero provincial legislation protecting rental stock. Municipalities can do what they like.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

that's not acceptable, and that would not fly here in Montréal. how can this be socially acceptable ?

It's not socially acceptable, lots of people are speaking out against it. But it's hard for cities to turn away the tax revenue, and also it has the guise of being "green" as those affordable apartment buildings are mostly being razed for TOD.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

If you read my posts on other immigration topics I am far from an "immigration free-for-all" person. I will note that I am an immigrant myself. I don't think more immigration is automatically better, nor do I think that lessening immigration is automatically worse.

What I'm saying is that if the goal is to improve housing affordability cutting immigration will not be nearly as effective as banning foreign ownership. The amount of demand involved in either case just doesn't compare, especially when you consider that we can't conceivably completely eliminate immigration. A gradual diminishment maybe, but I just don't see it affecting housing prices by nearly as much.

Well you didn't answer my questions. What is the appropriate immigration quota? 300k? 400k? 1 million? Unlimited? Also at what point does a number become negative and how can you tell? What happens?

Originally Posted by casper

Immigration is not the problem. Immigration is needed to address an aging work-force and the fact there are labour shortages in multiple areas in Canada. We need more immigration not less.

What we also need to do is create affordable rental accommodation. In BC the provincial government has stayed out of operating new social housing themselves instead they are dependent on social enterprises. Housing societies are non-profits that create, own and operate housing for the social good. Some focus on addressing first nations housing others on seniors and others on the poor or middle class.

We need more autonomous housing societies that are social enterprises and operate at arms length from government. Let each of them have a different focus on the community they serve. If you leave these to their own devices they will become create in what they do.

The nice this about this strategy is these non-profits can be self-sufficient. The government just needs to loan the housing societies money to build property, the government can hold the 25 year mortgage on the building, and as the society pays off its mortgage that money that can be loaned to others to build more housing.

With the current immigration quota Canada is growing at 4 million people every decade. Canada will be at over 70 million before the end of the century. There some idiots planning to try to up the quota to 450k a year which would result in a Canada at over 100 million before the end of the century and most of that growth would be in the first half. You point would be valid if Canada was declining. It is not. It is doing anything but and almost all the people are being funneled into the cities. Again I am not against immigration but I am not stupid enough to not see that the rate is too high and it is the reason for most of our problems with infrastructure and housing. If the rate would be 150k Canada would still be growing and there would still be no labor shortages but the problems of housing and not being able to keep up with infrastructure would largely vanish.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Well you didn't answer my questions. What is the appropriate immigration quota? 300k? 400k? 1 million? Unlimited? Also at what point does a number become negative and how can you tell? What happens?



With the current immigration quota Canada is growing at 4 million people every decade. Canada will be at over 70 million before the end of the century. There some idiots planning to try to up the quota to 450k a year which would result in a Canada at over 100 million before the end of the century and most of that growth would be in the first half. You point would be valid if Canada was declining. It is not. It is doing anything but and almost all the people are being funneled into the cities. Again I am not against immigration but I am not stupid enough to not see that the rate is too high and it is the reason for most of our problems with infrastructure and housing. If the rate would be 150k Canada would still be growing and there would still be no labor shortages but the problems of housing and not being able to keep up with infrastructure would largely vanish.

Your question was what the appropriate immigration quota would be. My (kind of) answer was that you seem to be implying that I support high immigration, when in reality I do not (but nor do I oppose it).

To answer your question more explicitly, I have no idea what the right amount of immigration is. My initial opinion is that high immigration is a symptom of the unsustainability of our economic and social system in that we don't have enough people to support the services of the people we have now. But given the system we're in now, I could be swayed either way given my lack of knowledge on the subject. Maybe if we had less immigrants we could make it work by paying higher wages, or maybe we do need more immigrants to maintain our level of prosperity. I'm really not married to either idea. But my gut feeling is that our reliance on immigrants is an issue from our end and it would be preferable if we could be more reliant on our own population.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Well you didn't answer my questions. What is the appropriate immigration quota? 300k? 400k? 1 million? Unlimited? Also at what point does a number become negative and how can you tell? What happens?



With the current immigration quota Canada is growing at 4 million people every decade. Canada will be at over 70 million before the end of the century. There some idiots planning to try to up the quota to 450k a year which would result in a Canada at over 100 million before the end of the century and most of that growth would be in the first half. You point would be valid if Canada was declining. It is not. It is doing anything but and almost all the people are being funneled into the cities. Again I am not against immigration but I am not stupid enough to not see that the rate is too high and it is the reason for most of our problems with infrastructure and housing. If the rate would be 150k Canada would still be growing and there would still be no labor shortages but the problems of housing and not being able to keep up with infrastructure would largely vanish.

Canada isn't Vancouver, which has clearly failed in many policy areas.

The only places with major housing price problems are Vancouver and Toronto, the rest of Canada isn't too bad. High immigration for a country as large and sparsely populated as Canada is a good thing - The USA went from ~80 million in 1900 to ~300 million now and it has the most powerful economy on earth, and somehow mostly kept housing prices reasonable so the facts show immigration does not have to negatively affect house prices but does provide growth. We should aim for as much immigration as we can sustain, but obviously don't encourage them to go to Vancouver.