getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Sliver

IDK, I don't think CHL is a braggart. Dude's a lawyer, probably mid-30s to early-40s, he's planning a vacation/retirement property...just doesn't seem like that big of a stretch. I like hearing about the neat stuff people are doing. I think I knew he had some property, but I know I didn't know it was in BC or on an island, so he definitely hasn't been beating us over the head with it. Frankly, it sounds like it would be cool to hear/see more about it.

It's not really bragging if my complaint is that I can't afford to build the place... but the issue is what Bizarro said. It's even worse in areas that have more pronounced housing affordability issues, like Vancouver or Toronto, because the people who already own the homes are even more protective of their newfound house wealth and will throw up even more roadblocks to building in an efficient and cost-effective manner. So if you think it's bad here, it's even worse elsewhere, was my point.

And yeah, I'll try to do some build progress posts... if I ever can. I cleared the spot back in 2020 when Covid started and subsequently did more blasting and site prep work but that's where I stopped, as I was quoted $250k just for a basement foundation and associated infrastructure like septic - that's before I even have a building to put on top. I'm discouraged right now so most of my funds are going into GICs for a while in the hopes that things get a bit better in 2024, I think. I can still pull a bunch out if there's an opportunity but I think I have to wait for interest rates to go up enough that there's less appetite to build stuff.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Cost effective construction on a coastal island isn’t going to be the relevant ticket to solving the housing crisis so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it to the discussion other than to CHL humble brag.

I dunno, the prospect of stranding CHL on an island in the Pacific does have its allure.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Before we even consider changing building codes or worrying about building more homes, we need to deal with how inaccessible existing housing is.

You can build more homes but if the only people buying them are the wealthy, who then create artificial scarcity which puts more demand on the market, plus increases already outrageous rental prices, then we’re no further ahead.

What needs to happen first is the government needs to remove all tax advantages to rental properties. Make gross rental income fully taxable with no deductions. Then charge increasingly higher tax rates the more properties owned. We need to make home ownership more accessible using the inventory already there.

Then mandate all new construction of condo low/high rises be at least 50% for sale to the public. No more corporate owned condo towers. The subscription model is permeating every facet of our lives and we need to take steps to stop it.

Then we can worry about building more. Of course, none of the above will ever happen because, as was already alluded to above, homeowners, politicians and the ultra rich benefit the most financially from the status quo. Making home ownership accessible would be a massive disruption to wealth generation for property hoarders and the rich.

You also just disincentivized new construction and increased rental costs due to reduced supply.

I think state run rental to undercut the corporate market is the only way to fix as the incentives that decrease rent all decrease the supply of rentals.

However state run rental has to avoide creating slums. So then I get back to the everyone gets a crack head model but as others pointed out that creates it’s own problems.

[Johnny199r]

The government used to build a lot of purpose built rental buildings until the mid 90s. They were actually pretty good at it. Then they just gave up and of course private developers are in business to make a living, not charity. The void has become pretty big.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by GGG

You also just disincentivized new construction and increased rental costs due to reduced supply.

I think state run rental to undercut the corporate market is the only way to fix as the incentives that decrease rent all decrease the supply of rentals.

However state run rental has to avoide creating slums. So then I get back to the everyone gets a crack head model but as others pointed out that creates it’s own problems.

It would decrease rental supply but home ownership would become instantly affordable for millions and millions of renters. Home values would instantly become attainable again.

We’d have tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands? Millions?) of landlords wanting to get rid of their money pits asap. What we lose in rentals, we gain in home owners.

And that’s why it’ll never happen. Property values in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver etc would fall by 50% overnight. Not only would the wealthy lose property value but they’d lose the lucrative sources of income they get by leeching off the young and the poor by squeezing them out of home ownership and into rentals. It’s a vicious cycle. End the cycle.

State run rentals would then help offset any decrease in rental supply. Plus, the existing purpose rentals can stay. There just won’t be any permits for new construction unless it’s 50% owned.

[GGG]

If you leave existing rentals as still allowed why is their a drop in rental price? We currently have a shortage of housing units in the major Centers. It doesn’t really matter who owns them in this scenario prices will keep going up. I also don’t think people immediately bail. Some will get forced out due to cash flow but any longer term holder will ride out the drop and wait for scarcity to drive rents and pricing back up. Without that stream of supply there just isn’t a solution.

The maximum difference in property value will be the stress tested mortgage limit versus current rental prices of places people are renting. And the people who can’t afford a down payment get screwed worse with higher rental prices.

You might be able to raise property taxes to surpress property values which at least keeps the money public. Any property over x value pays 10x the tax on the value above. It would create some interesting affects. It would encourage smaller units (for better or for worse), In theory it should cap the value of land.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

The government used to build a lot of purpose built rental buildings until the mid 90s. They were actually pretty good at it. Then they just gave up and of course private developers are in business to make a living, not charity. The void has become pretty big.

Do you know what that program was called or have a link to it? I couldn't find anything and hadn't previously heard of that, and I'm quite interested.

Quite a bit of multi family housing stock in Canada was built under a tax incentive program from the late 70s called the MURB. It allowed significantly accelerated depreciation on qualifying buildings that could be deducted against other income, so investors could get a large tax break in year 1 (eventually repaid when the unit was either sold or fully depreciated, but that would be years later). That spurred quite a bit of construction quickly. The Prime Minister who put it in place had the same last name as the current one.

[blankall]

Another thing to consider is that many homeowners have owned their homes for a long time. They don't care if their house drops in value or the market stinks. They can just hold for longer. They bought their homes for 50% or less of their current value.

This isn't like the 80s crash, where you had a huge swath of 20 something baby boomers who'd leveraged themselves to buy houses with a fixed income.

A large portion of the young people who did recently buy houses did so with help from their parents. If push comes to shove their parents will give them $2k per month to make ends meet.
There is no affordability as long as the shortage continues and empty nesters continue to hold their houses.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by blankall

Another thing to consider is that many homeowners have owned their homes for a long time. They don't care if their house drops in value or the market stinks. They can just hold for longer. They bought their homes for 50% or less of their current value.

This isn't like the 80s crash, where you had a huge swath of 20 something baby boomers who'd leveraged themselves to buy houses with a fixed income.

A large portion of the young people who did recently buy houses did so with help from their parents. If push comes to shove their parents will give them $2k per month to make ends meet.
There is no affordability as long as the shortage continues and empty nesters continue to hold their houses.

There was just some Stats Can info on Vancouver that showed 50% of Vancouver homes are mortgage free.
The % is even higher in wealthy Westside neighbourhoods with pricier homes; up to 64% in Oakridge.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

You also just disincentivized new construction and increased rental costs due to reduced supply.

I think state run rental to undercut the corporate market is the only way to fix as the incentives that decrease rent all decrease the supply of rentals.

However state run rental has to avoide creating slums. So then I get back to the everyone gets a crack head model but as others pointed out that creates it’s own problems.

I can picture 'Adopt-A-Junkie' right now...

Cheryl is going to be telling Elsie at book-club that they dont dabble in crack heads, they only sponsor locally sourced, ethically treated, free-range vegan cocaine fiends.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

There was just some Stats Can info on Vancouver that showed 50% of Vancouver homes are mortgage free.
The % is even higher in wealthy Westside neighbourhoods with pricier homes; up to 64% in Oakridge.

And then add in the homes with a late mortgage of a relatively low amount to free up capital, secondary investment properties, kids with rich parents, people who acquired mortgages 10+ years ago, etc...

There's no big sell off coming. And pushing a few young families out of their homes with a prolonged period of high mortgages isn't going to increase affordability. Those homes will be snapped up, at a slight discount, by the wealthy, and the housing crisis gets worse.

Canada needs more homes if it wants to ease the housing crisis.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Do you know what that program was called or have a link to it? I couldn't find anything and hadn't previously heard of that, and I'm quite interested.

Quite a bit of multi family housing stock in Canada was built under a tax incentive program from the late 70s called the MURB. It allowed significantly accelerated depreciation on qualifying buildings that could be deducted against other income, so investors could get a large tax break in year 1 (eventually repaid when the unit was either sold or fully depreciated, but that would be years later). That spurred quite a bit of construction quickly. The Prime Minister who put it in place had the same last name as the current one.

There were a few programs like that between the '60s and the early '90s. I know one was the "low rental limited dividend" program (or something like that). Basically the government would loan money at below-market rates to anyone who would build rental stock (effectively subsidizing it), as long as they committed to renting to low-to-middle income families and strong rent control measures for a certain period of time (I think it was 15-20 years or something like that).

But I don't know that there was actually a whole lot of uptake in the private sector. There were a lot of non-profit and cooperative organizations that took advantage of that though, and eventually provinces and municipalities were offered the same terms. Because the non-private sector organizations could get 100% loan-to-value from these loans, it led to a fair amount of housing units getting built. And the CMHC would sometimes even buy the land and lease it back at a low rate to encourage even more construction. I know at some points, ~25% of the new units in Canada each year were directly a result from Federal government programs.

There was a real push in the '70s to get non-profit organizations and cooperatives to build rental housing. The idea being that with the favourable loan terms and not having to generate profits, that rents would stay low. And it did work to some extent.

That said, there were also reasons why it stopped. The programs were expensive, and some of the results were kind of underwhelming. In terms of housing units getting built though, post WWII policies were pretty effective. Canada built as many units in 1975 with a 23M population as we did in 2022 with a 39M population. And 2022 was a good year, with about 35% more housing starts than the average from the 2010s.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dunno, the prospect of stranding CHL on an island in the Pacific does have its allure.

We should start a gofundme to get him a place there.

[bizaro86]

@opendoor thanks!

I would comment that 1975 construction included MURB units, which were significant.

I think the two biggest contributors to the recent increases in rental housing stock have been very low interest rates with the market assigning low risk premiums to apartments, plus rent control being repealed in Ontario for new construction after 2018.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

We should start a gofundme to get him a place there.

He already has a place though, we need the GoFundMe to finance the Wall around his island that is welded shut from the outside.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by opendoor

There were a few programs like that between the '60s and the early '90s. I know one was the "low rental limited dividend" program (or something like that). Basically the government would loan money at below-market rates to anyone who would build rental stock (effectively subsidizing it), as long as they committed to renting to low-to-middle income families and strong rent control measures for a certain period of time (I think it was 15-20 years or something like that).

But I don't know that there was actually a whole lot of uptake in the private sector. There were a lot of non-profit and cooperative organizations that took advantage of that though, and eventually provinces and municipalities were offered the same terms. Because the non-private sector organizations could get 100% loan-to-value from these loans, it led to a fair amount of housing units getting built. And the CMHC would sometimes even buy the land and lease it back at a low rate to encourage even more construction. I know at some points, ~25% of the new units in Canada each year were directly a result from Federal government programs.

There was a real push in the '70s to get non-profit organizations and cooperatives to build rental housing. The idea being that with the favourable loan terms and not having to generate profits, that rents would stay low. And it did work to some extent.

That said, there were also reasons why it stopped. The programs were expensive, and some of the results were kind of underwhelming. In terms of housing units getting built though, post WWII policies were pretty effective. Canada built as many units in 1975 with a 23M population as we did in 2022 with a 39M population. And 2022 was a good year, with about 35% more housing starts than the average from the 2010s.

If we tried to implement this now, we'd likely find the same market conditions creating the housing shortage would lead to major obstacles preventing the construction of low income housing.

Building huge swaths of low income housing is likely a lot easier when land and construction costs are a fraction of what they are now. It would take a lot more than dropping a few percentage points on a loan to make building livable and affordable housing feasible.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by blankall

If we tried to implement this now, we'd likely find the same market conditions creating the housing shortage would lead to major obstacles preventing the construction of low income housing.

Building huge swaths of low income housing is likely a lot easier when land and construction costs are a fraction of what they are now. It would take a lot more than dropping a few percentage points on a loan to make building livable and affordable housing feasible.

Yeah, this is basically a local/zoning/green zone/alr problem. If you increased the supply of buildable multi-family land you'd get more multi-family construction. Which would increase the supply of multi-family housing, lowering prices/rents across the price spectrum as people substitute.

[chemgear]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...constitutional

Cocaine dealer says $74K fine for selling drugs to undercover cop is unconstitutional

He waged a constitutional challenge saying the imposition of a fine in lieu of forfeiture of the proceeds of crime — which he said he no longer had — is cruel and unusual punishment.

Abdelrazzaq doesn’t like to work, court heard at his trial in 2021: He called physical labour “disfiguring” and the work environment of retail sales “toxic.”

Abdelrazzaq objected and his lawyer argued the laws that allowed fines in lieu of forfeiture enforced by imprisonment breached the Charter of Rights.

[TorqueDog]

"Six times in 2019, when Abdelrazzaq was 29, he sold high-quality cocaine to an undercover police agent."

Wait wait wait, they arrested the guy selling the high-quality stuff? He's the last guy you want to arrest, go after the ones selling it cut with fentanyl.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

"Six times in 2019, when Abdelrazzaq was 29, he sold high-quality cocaine to an undercover police agent."

Wait wait wait, they arrested the guy selling the high-quality stuff? He's the last guy you want to arrest, go after the ones selling it cut with fentanyl.

Yeah, leave our guys alone.

Seriously though, 6 times in one year?