Homeowner versus Renter

[misher]

Does anyone feel that the political situation in Vancouver has become a war between those who rent and those who own? In recent elections its been renters that won the vote but I feel this may change as homeowners are being pushed to foot greater tax bills pushing them to turnout.

In 2011 51% of households were rental, which may have risen since then. This still leaves 49% of voters in Vancouver who own housing.
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/housi...fact-sheet.pdf

With only 43.4% of people voting, should the people that own housing get encouraged due to high taxes placed on them they could upset the voting balance.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...-voter-turnout

I encourage the city to be focused on improving Vancouver as a whole but it appears that most candidates are targeting the rental vote.

[retro_orange]

I feel there's a liberal troll who can only find a voice on an online forum after a 6 month hiatus and name change.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

Does anyone feel that the political situation in Vancouver has become a war between those who rent and those who own? .

No.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by misher

Does anyone feel that the political situation in Vancouver has become a war between those who rent and those who own?

No.

[GenWhy?]

Attending multiple provincial and City of Vancouver workshops, political meetings, forums, etc... it's not at that level, but the dialogue between landowners (landlords, developers, building managers) and renters was lessened and they have planted themselves more into their respective camps.

It's more on what can we do to make housing more plentiful and less expensive (tenancy laws, zoning, community plans, rent rates, policy and guidelines) rather than a battle between owners and renters.

In my line of work it's more homeowners vs renters when new developments are proposed (ex: renters are transient and bring crime / we don't want renters in our neighbourhood / we want more families but a smaller building (so higher rents))...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

I feel there's a liberal troll who can only find a voice on an online forum after a 6 month hiatus and name change.

Bingo, we have a winner!

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Attending multiple provincial and City of Vancouver workshops, political meetings, forums, etc... it's not at that level, but the dialogue between landowners (landlords, developers, building managers) and renters was lessened and they have planted themselves more into their respective camps.

It's more on what can we do to make housing more plentiful and less expensive (tenancy laws, zoning, community plans, rent rates, policy and guidelines) rather than a battle between owners and renters.

In my line of work it's more homeowners vs renters when new developments are proposed (ex: renters are transient and bring crime / we don't want renters in our neighbourhood / we want more families but a smaller building (so higher rents))...

Interesting insight. I've noticed much higher support for renters in younger (by average Owner age) buildings, with many having stated that all the problems were dealing with are owners. In my older buildings they tend to be anti-rental.

On another note I was quite surprised at how many renters there are now are in Vancouver. I know we have crazy strong rental laws which means that there are the occasional nightmare tenant. I assumed given the strong renter protections many would be dissuaded from renting out their places but it appears that these laws haven't slowed down the rental market. https://globalnews.ca/news/4153633/n...ndlord-rights/

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by misher

Does anyone feel that the political situation in Vancouver has become a war between those who rent and those who own? In recent elections its been renters that won the vote but I feel this may change as homeowners are being pushed to foot greater tax bills pushing them to turnout.

In 2011 51% of households were rental, which may have risen since then. This still leaves 49% of voters in Vancouver who own housing.
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/housi...fact-sheet.pdf

With only 43.4% of people voting, should the people that own housing get encouraged due to high taxes placed on them they could upset the voting balance.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...-voter-turnout

I encourage the city to be focused on improving Vancouver as a whole but it appears that most candidates are targeting the rental vote.

Those numbers did change in the 2016 census.

2016 City of Vancouver housing characteristics: total households 283,915 - renter 150,750 (53.1%) vs owner 133,165 (46.9%).

Source

[GenWhy?]

I should have clarified that it's mainly in SF home dominant neighbourhoods, which is most neighbourhoods and the main housing type in Vancouver. We get a mixed reaction from age range and backgrounds. Family-type folks seem to be 50-50 on wanting 4-6 storey rental projects nearby, 50-50 reactions I'd say as well of those family groups own/rent, which I found interesting. It's fairly balanced at our open houses. There is a disproportionate "fear" or anxiety about density increases and more renters in mainly SF home neighbourhoods to allow rental buildings on arterial roads.

Bad renters exist as much as bad homeowning neighbours exist, in my opinion and experience... you can at least evict bad renters... rentals are being built because there's a market for it, homeowners are building and renting basement and laneway suites because there's a market for it and due to economics. At many events homeowners and building managers are asking for more rules for their side, while renters are asking for more protections as well.

The answer is somewhere in the middle for the two parties on issues like pet insurance, mandatory renter's insurance, etc. Those two examples were big ticket items at the Rental Task Force meetings. There is definitely increased dissagreement and isolation of dialoge and conversation but the issues are solveable.

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I should have clarified that it's mainly in SF home dominant neighbourhoods, which is most neighbourhoods and the main housing type in Vancouver. We get a mixed reaction from age range and backgrounds. Family-type folks seem to be 50-50 on wanting 4-6 storey rental projects nearby, 50-50 reactions I'd say as well of those family groups own/rent, which I found interesting. It's fairly balanced at our open houses. There is a disproportionate "fear" or anxiety about density increases and more renters in mainly SF home neighbourhoods to allow rental buildings on arterial roads.

Bad renters exist as much as bad homeowning neighbours exist, in my opinion and experience... you can at least evict bad renters... rentals are being built because there's a market for it, homeowners are building and renting basement and laneway suites because there's a market for it and due to economics. At many events homeowners and building managers are asking for more rules for their side, while renters are asking for more protections as well.

The answer is somewhere in the middle for the two parties on issues like pet insurance, mandatory renter's insurance, etc. Those two examples were big ticket items at the Rental Task Force meetings. There is definitely increased dissagreement and isolation of dialoge and conversation but the issues are solveable.

On my end I'd say at least renters can move when there's bad Owners while Homeowners are stuck going through the legal process to evict and then have a difficult time collecting on damages and lost rent.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by misher

On my end I'd say at least renters can move when there's bad Owners while Homeowners are stuck going through the legal process to evict and then have a difficult time collecting on damages and lost rent.

Those are legitimate concerns from homeowning landlords. But a legal process exists none-the-less to ensure a fair process. Can it be modified? Sure. Is it perfect? I don't think so. Hence the mandatory renters insurance or a more robust system on collections, damages, etc. Some landlords don't rent their suites out as good as they should (like a business) and some are not savvy business folks. But due to the rental / housing situation the region is in it definitely adds fuel to the fire of renter / owner issues.

[ssiguy]

Vancouver and BC can build all the social housing for a decade and it still won`t do any good to increase rental supply. Yes it is important and can definitely help low-income people and people with special needs but for 95% of renters it won`t mean squat. In some ways social housing hurts because it makes politicians look good and allows them to avoid hard decisions. There is one and ONLY one way to ease the rental/housing crisis in Vancouver...……...a complete housing collapse of at LEAST 50%. Even a 50% decline would only bring SFH prices `down` to Toronto levels which exemplifies how grotesque Vancouver prices are. Vancouver`s rental crisis is structural and actually has little to do with most of the city being zoned SFH.


Vancouver`s rental crisis is due to it`s real estate prices. In every other city in the country {including the GTA}, middle income people have the options of renting or buying but not in Vancouver. Due to most condos now being out of reach for even middle income people, it has forced these people to rent In other words you have a monstrous demographic who are forced to be renters where every other city most would be owners.


Vancouver is not a fast growing city but quite the contrary. According to the latest CMA estimates, Metro is one of the slowest growing CMA`s in the country. It`s not the number of total people but rather the total number of people that are forced to be renters. Only a complete collapse in the housing market will ease the rental crisis as those hundreds of thousands of renters who are potential buyers move beyond the rental market and current condo owners who want to move into larger SFH/townhomes begin to leave their places for the space they need.

Except for a few who will benefit from social housing, everything else is window dressing. A complete housing collapse is the ONLY way out of the crisis we currently face.

[misher]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver and BC can build all the social housing for a decade and it still won`t do any good to increase rental supply. Yes it is important and can definitely help low-income people and people with special needs but for 95% of renters it won`t mean squat. In some ways social housing hurts because it makes politicians look good and allows them to avoid hard decisions. There is one and ONLY one way to ease the rental/housing crisis in Vancouver...……...a complete housing collapse of at LEAST 50%. Even a 50% decline would only bring SFH prices `down` to Toronto levels which exemplifies how grotesque Vancouver prices are. Vancouver`s rental crisis is structural and actually has little to do with most of the city being zoned SFH.


Vancouver`s rental crisis is due to it`s real estate prices. In every other city in the country {including the GTA}, middle income people have the options of renting or buying but not in Vancouver. Due to most condos now being out of reach for even middle income people, it has forced these people to rent In other words you have a monstrous demographic who are forced to be renters where every other city most would be owners.


Vancouver is not a fast growing city but quite the contrary. According to the latest CMA estimates, Metro is one of the slowest growing CMA`s in the country. It`s not the number of total people but rather the total number of people that are forced to be renters. Only a complete collapse in the housing market will ease the rental crisis as those hundreds of thousands of renters who are potential buyers move beyond the rental market and current condo owners who want to move into larger SFH/townhomes begin to leave their places for the space they need.

Except for a few who will benefit from social housing, everything else is window dressing. A complete housing collapse is the ONLY way out of the crisis we currently face.

What your talking about would cause a massive depression. Many would go homeless and unemployment would be huge. Even America’s housing collapse during their recession was only 10-20%

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

What your talking about would cause a massive depression. Many would go homeless and unemployment would be huge. Even America’s housing collapse during their recession was only 10-20%

People using percentage change numbers don't always mean the same thing, but assuming ssiguy means that with "a complete housing collapse of at LEAST 50%" a $1m apartment would cost $500,000 after the collapse, then between 2007 and 2012 overall US house prices fell by 22%. However, many markets fell by quite a bit more. Seattle, for example fell 31%, and San Francisco by 32% over the same period. In both those markets - and in many cities - that drop lasted only 3 years. By 2015 prices in Seattle and San Francisco were the same as they had been in 2007, and since then they've continued to climb. [source]

[s211]

Not sure if this is the best thread to post this in, but if I were a Vancouver landlord, I'd be lawyering up. Vancouver is apparently looking to ape the grand Berlin experiment.

https://www.dw.com/en/berlins-revolu...lop/a-56664706

And for the record, I'm a renter and I think this kind of program is insane. I understand how detrimental legislation like this can be when it comes to new rental supply and the condition of the existing rental supply.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by s211

Not sure if this is the best thread to post this in, but if I were a Vancouver landlord, I'd be lawyering up. Vancouver is apparently looking to ape the grand Berlin experiment.

https://www.dw.com/en/berlins-revolu...lop/a-56664706

And for the record, I'm a renter and I think this kind of program is insane. I understand how detrimental legislation like this can be when it comes to new rental supply and the condition of the existing rental supply.

Where are you hearing this?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by s211

Not sure if this is the best thread to post this in, but if I were a Vancouver landlord, I'd be lawyering up. Vancouver is apparently looking to ape the grand Berlin experiment.

https://www.dw.com/en/berlins-revolu...lop/a-56664706

And for the record, I'm a renter and I think this kind of program is insane. I understand how detrimental legislation like this can be when it comes to new rental supply and the condition of the existing rental supply.

Does the city even have the power to do that here?

I'd be curious to know how the market rental housing constructed over the last few years under various programs is doing in terms of occupancy. They were not cheap. It's my impression renters have been harder hit by Covid job losses than owners, plus you have the lack of international students.

[s211]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Where are you hearing this?

In the article, they mention that Vancouver has enquired of Berlin.

[Klazu]

Thanks for the link! I used to live in Berlin and it was dirt cheap to live there even in the city centre. Since then rents have doubled but it is still very cheap compared to here or most other places. In the article's video the person is looking for a €300/month apartment in city center which would be less than C$500, so still dirt cheap. Suburbs would be way cheaper and transit is great, so I am not buying her problem.

The article also mentions Germany being 650,000 apartments short of housings needs. I wonder if Merkel's 1.2 million refugees would have anything to do with it, similar to our high immigration numbers obviously keeping the demand going forever as people have to live somewhere.

[Spr0ckets]

Not to derail this discussion, and while I don't know about the situation in Germany, I'll just note that Canada's "high" immigration numbers are actually vital to her existence as a nation unlike in other places.

Canadian native born women have a lower fertility rate than immigrant women - again, as is typical for most places in the world with high immigration, but unlike most of those other places, most immigrants into Canada go directly into the labor and work force, while also immediately replacing what would otherwise be a declining population growth number with their higher-than-average fertility and birth rates. And even then it's barely enough....

The total fertility rate in 2019 was 1.47 birth per woman over the course of her reproductive life. (Healthy) Populations need at birth rate of at least 2.1 births per woman, but Canada has not met this threshold since 1971. This means that the number of babies being born is not enough for the current population to replace itself.

Further complicating issues is the fact that Canada’s 9 million baby boomers are expected to reach retirement age in just 10 years time, and without (younger aged) immigration to replace those people in the work force, and an aging population needing support not much longer after that 10 years.......well..... you don't need me to paint you that picture.

Just ask Japan.

Luckily for Canada, and unlike most other places, we can usually increase our immigration numbers to meet needed expectation.
However, unluckily for Canada there's an even bigger magnet for highly skilled immigrants just south of the border. Maybe not so much the last four years, but still.

Anyway, this was just to note that the "immigration" situation is not always so black and white or so simple as it's painted to be, and while I realize it's a favourite pastime around these here parts to bash and beat up on immigrants, I just thought a little bit of context might be useful.


As you were.