MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Upzoning increases property values though.

For that particular property, but what about adjacent properties?

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Our taxes will go up by necessecity to service our addiction to urban sprawl.


Protecting what? Of all the discussion here, I have yet to see a concrete example of some denser housing "ruining" the value of someone's property. I'm also still waiting to hear about all those reduced property values the SW BRT brought in.

Well, look at this way. You buy a house for $1m, and it's lovely. It's in a neighbourhood that is all SFHs. A developer buys the place next door to you for that $1m, knocks it down and puts a 4-plex there. They sell those places for say $500k each (I'm obviously just making up numbers here). So, what happens to the value of your place? Does your place remain as saleable as a place around the corner that isn't next to a 4-plex?

[flamesfever]

While the middle-class aspirations extend beyond home ownership, historically, the single-detached house has been associated with the middle-class aspirations. It symbolizes stability, space, and the dream of homeownership.

This applies especially to those wishing to raise families, where you have backyards, abundance of trees, privacy, and your own little piece of heaven. Where you have a strong sense of community, where you get to know your neighbor and you look out for each other. Where kids grow up together and develop lifelong friendships. Lord knows Canada needs more families with kids.

When I drive around the stoney trail, I see these huge recent developments, and what stands out is the lack of trees, and closeness of the large oversized single detached houses. IMO the older neighborhoods, in the more central part of the city, where single detached neighborhoods have not yet suffered from densification, are what makes Calgary one of the best places in which to live.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Slava

For that particular property, but what about adjacent properties?

I'm just saying if you go to RC2, your property just shot up in value by X% (I don't know what X is, but I'd argue it'd be somewhere like 10-20%). This means everyone that went from R1 to RC2 has gone up the same way.

Well, look at this way. You buy a house for $1m, and it's lovely. It's in a neighbourhood that is all SFHs. A developer buys the place next door to you for that 1.2M, knocks it down and puts a 4-plex there. They sell those places for say $500k each (I'm obviously just making up numbers here). So, what happens to the value of your place? Does your place remain as saleable as a place around the corner that isn't next to a 4-plex?

The only issue I have with your made up numbers is what I've corrected - as you note, a developer can extract an additional 1M from the land, so there's an upward pull on your value somewhere between 1 and 2M. Developers can compete with each other for that piece of land depending on what they can put on it and how well they can build it and what profit margin they're looking for.

The likely answer is yes, if not more so. Because your market is no longer just selling your property to another family looking for quiet, you also have the market of developers looking to drop that four plex on it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

While the middle-class aspirations extend beyond home ownership, historically, the single-detached house has been associated with the middle-class aspirations. It symbolizes stability, space, and the dream of homeownership.

This applies especially to those wishing to raise families, where you have backyards, abundance of trees, privacy, and your own little piece of heaven. Where you have a strong sense of community, where you get to know your neighbor and you look out for each other. Where kids grow up together and develop lifelong friendships. Lord knows Canada needs more families with kids.

When I drive around the stoney trail, I see these huge recent developments, and what stands out is the lack of trees, and closeness of the large oversized single detached houses. IMO the older neighborhoods, in the more central part of the city, where single detached neighborhoods have not yet suffered from densification, are what makes Calgary one of the best places in which to live.

The middle class can’t afford to live there anymore.

And your solution is to ensure they never will again.

Very altruistic.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Upzoning increases property values though.

Is that increase due to up zoning or gentrification?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

When I drive around the stoney trail, I see these huge recent developments, and what stands out is the lack of trees, and closeness of the large oversized single detached houses. IMO the older neighborhoods, in the more central part of the city, where single detached neighborhoods have not yet suffered from densification, are what makes Calgary one of the best places in which to live.

The city has a plan for trees:
https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...y-preservation

This might make it somewhat more difficult for developers to build on older inner city lots and increase densification if they have to deal with tree red tape.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The middle class can’t afford to live there anymore.

And your solution is to ensure they never will again.

Very altruistic.

If we keep your Liberal NDP coalition much longer the upper class will become the middle class, the middle class will be the lower class, and the lower class will be homeless.

I recall one of the old time federal leaders saying, " There are the haves and the havenots, and some of the parties will make us all become havenots".

[Wormius]

Man, people are really waxing poetic about some kind of Canadian dream when they talk about what people want when they buy a house.

It’s literally a place to live, put stuff, and not pay rent anymore. I think the main aspiration in mind when going from a renter to a home-owner is, “I’m tired of paying rent to somebody else”. Everything else is secondary.

Then they talk about living there forever, but as soon as the prospect of higher density housing comes along, they cry, “but my house won’t be valuable anymore!”. Okay, so either your house value plummets and you’re gifted with lower property taxes, or it goes up and you been gifted with a higher resell value. There’s no downside.

In our old area in Kelowna where dumpy houses are being torn down and replaced with 4-plexes everywhere, I can attest that this hasn’t hurt the values of those dumpy homes that developers are snatching up. Heck, if you really want to make some bank, coordinate with your neighbours and create a land assembly.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

For that particular property, but what about adjacent properties?



Well, look at this way. You buy a house for $1m, and it's lovely. It's in a neighbourhood that is all SFHs. A developer buys the place next door to you for that $1m, knocks it down and puts a 4-plex there. They sell those places for say $500k each (I'm obviously just making up numbers here). So, what happens to the value of your place? Does your place remain as saleable as a place around the corner that isn't next to a 4-plex?

I mean, you just gave an example where someone paid the exact value of your house for an adjacent one so they could knock it down, and build, so yeah, your house is just sa saleable, and worth exactly what it was worth beforehand, in your example.

Hell, it looks to me like the value of your home is actually much higher now, cause you could knock it down, build 4 units, pocket a couple hundred grand, and either still have a place to live, or turn that profit into a nicer house.

In any case, it sure looks to me like the value of your place has at worst stayed the same, and more than likely, there is now an opportunity for it to be worth more to either you, or someone else.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If we keep your Liberal NDP coalition much longer the upper class will become the middle class, the middle class will be the lower class, and the lower class will be homeless.

I recall one of the old time federal leaders saying, " There are the haves and the havenots, and some of the parties will make us all become havenots".

My man, you’re literally arguing against more people being able to afford to live in your neighborhood and against “liberal voting” immigrants.

Don’t pretend like you even kind of care about where the middle and lower classes end up.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

But being on the Tik Tok keeps me up to date on all the new stuff so I can be the "cool dad".

<Steve Buscemi "Hello fellow students" picture goes here>

You can just be a normal dad and watch them on Instagram 3 weeks later.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I'm just saying if you go to RC2, your property just shot up in value by X% (I don't know what X is, but I'd argue it'd be somewhere like 10-20%). This means everyone that went from R1 to RC2 has gone up the same way.



The only issue I have with your made up numbers is what I've corrected - as you note, a developer can extract an additional 1M from the land, so there's an upward pull on your value somewhere between 1 and 2M. Developers can compete with each other for that piece of land depending on what they can put on it and how well they can build it and what profit margin they're looking for.

The likely answer is yes, if not more so. Because your market is no longer just selling your property to another family looking for quiet, you also have the market of developers looking to drop that four plex on it.

I think that today you get that bump, but do you get that if all the zoning is the same? And, as I said below, I should've put the purchase at less than the full value of the house to make this more realistic.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I mean, you just gave an example where someone paid the exact value of your house for an adjacent one so they could knock it down, and build, so yeah, your house is just sa saleable, and worth exactly what it was worth beforehand, in your example.

Hell, it looks to me like the value of your home is actually much higher now, cause you could knock it down, build 4 units, pocket a couple hundred grand, and either still have a place to live, or turn that profit into a nicer house.

In any case, it sure looks to me like the value of your place has at worst stayed the same, and more than likely, there is now an opportunity for it to be worth more to either you, or someone else.

Ok, so they buy the house next door for land value, say for $600k and build a 4-plex. This was my point in saying that I was just making up numbers and I guess I shouldn't been so generous in saying that the developer was paying full freight for the house next door.

I debate the idea of the marketability though. I feel like a house between two SFHs is more attractive than one with a 4-plex next door.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Slava

You can't see how people would want to protect the value of their largest or one of their largest assets?

Protect the value from what?! WTF are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, look at this way. You buy a house for $1m, and it's lovely. It's in a neighbourhood that is all SFHs. A developer buys the place next door to you for that $1m, knocks it down and puts a 4-plex there. They sell those places for say $500k each (I'm obviously just making up numbers here). So, what happens to the value of your place?

The value of your property shoots up!

Does your place remain as saleable as a place around the corner that isn't next to a 4-plex?

YES!!! Categorically, yes!

[cheevers]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that today you get that bump, but do you get that if all the zoning is the same? And, as I said below, I should've put the purchase at less than the full value of the house to make this more realistic.



Ok, so they buy the house next door for land value, say for $600k and build a 4-plex. This was my point in saying that I was just making up numbers and I guess I shouldn't been so generous in saying that the developer was paying full freight for the house next door.

I debate the idea of the marketability though. I feel like a house between two SFHs is more attractive than one with a 4-plex next door.

How big do you think four-plexes are? I live in one, the building is the same size if not smaller than my friend's home that lives in the burbs. If there wasn't two front doors, you would just assume it was another single family home.

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that today you get that bump, but do you get that if all the zoning is the same? And, as I said below, I should've put the purchase at less than the full value of the house to make this more realistic.



Ok, so they buy the house next door for land value, say for $600k and build a 4-plex. This was my point in saying that I was just making up numbers and I guess I shouldn't been so generous in saying that the developer was paying full freight for the house next door.

I debate the idea of the marketability though. I feel like a house between two SFHs is more attractive than one with a 4-plex next door.

Just because a developer is buying it for the land, doesn't mean that's what it's worth. If there's a house on it, that's part of the value. If the owner is willing to sell it for a ridiculously undervalued price (hint: they're not unless they're morons) you should buy it and flip it for a quick profit.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, look at this way. You buy a house for $1m, and it's lovely. It's in a neighbourhood that is all SFHs. A developer buys the place next door to you for that $1m, knocks it down and puts a 4-plex there. They sell those places for say $500k each (I'm obviously just making up numbers here). So, what happens to the value of your place? Does your place remain as saleable as a place around the corner that isn't next to a 4-plex?

I suspect those new units will go for more like $800K-$1.2M.

But I don't think opponents of rezoning actually care about changes up or down in their property value; what they care about is change in possible neighbors. Not only do they want to live in a SFH, they want to live beside SFHs. Even if developers only cherry-pick a few units to build a new high-end development, nobody wants to be the unlucky one to be beside it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by accord1999

I suspect those new units will go for more like $800K-$1.2M.

But I don't think opponents of rezoning actually care about changes up or down in their property value; what they care about is change in possible neighbors. Not only do they want to live in a SFH, they want to live beside SFHs. Even if developers only cherry-pick a few units to build a new high-end development, nobody wants to be the unlucky one to be beside it.

I have no idea why. According to everyone else in this thread the property value skyrockets and you wouldn't even notice a difference.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that today you get that bump, but do you get that if all the zoning is the same? And, as I said below, I should've put the purchase at less than the full value of the house to make this more realistic.



Ok, so they buy the house next door for land value, say for $600k and build a 4-plex. This was my point in saying that I was just making up numbers and I guess I shouldn't been so generous in saying that the developer was paying full freight for the house next door.

I debate the idea of the marketability though. I feel like a house between two SFHs is more attractive than one with a 4-plex next door.

This still doesn't make sense though. Assuming that the homes/lots in a neighborhood are somewhat equivalent, who is going to sell a million dollar house/lot for $600k?

The basic premise of your argument is. If the price for a $1M house for some reason drops to $600k and then they build a 4 plex next door, my house won't be worth $1M anymore.

If the house next door sold for $600k, then yours was never worth $1M. And if yours is worth $1M, then the one next door will never sell for $600k.

Your basic argument is that if the value of your house drops, the value of your house drops, and for some reason that's because of zoning. Or you're arguing that if upzoning goes through, suddenly land values wil drop, which is most certainly not the case.

Either way, at best you're arguing in a circle.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

This still doesn't make sense though. Assuming that the homes/lots in a neighborhood are somewhat equivalent, who is going to sell a million dollar house/lot for $600k?

The basic premise of your argument is. If the price for a $1M house for some reason drops to $600k and then they build a 4 plex next door, my house won't be worth $1M anymore.

If the house next door sold for $600k, then yours was never worth $1M. And if yours is worth $1M, then the one next door will never sell for $600k.

Your basic argument is that if the value of your house drops, the value of your house drops, and for some reason that's because of zoning. Or you're arguing that if upzoning goes through, suddenly land values wil drop, which is most certainly not the case.

Either way, at best you're arguing in a circle.

Well, maybe I'm wrong, and I acknowledge that my numbers are. But, I can't possibly be the only person who thinks that multi-family beside SFHs is going to decrease the values of those neighbouring properties?

[Wormius]

You could just search and pull some numbers from MLS or the city assessments.