Canadians 'drowning in debt': 47% will borrow to cover costs, survey says

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by peter12

Growing up in Millview (DEEP SOUTH CALGARY) and commuting 90 minutes back and forth to UofC every day thankfully left me with no student loans and a deep deep deep desire to never ever live in the suburbs. Apartment living was and is still an incredibly enjoyable way to live life. I haven't commuted to worth ever in my life. What a joy.

So why all the complaining (and blaming) then?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So why all the complaining (and blaming) then?

Because I am a high wage professional who can afford this lifestyle. It shouldn't be so exclusive.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by peter12

A very Boomer thing to say.

JC dude. What I said is a simple fact for any home owner. It has nothing to do with being a boomer - I simply pointed out that opendoor was lamenting that housing prices might go down - well yeah, they do. For everyone.

You seem like a really well informed and thoughtful poster. But you let your irrational hatred for boomers really get the better of you.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

JC dude. What I said is a simple fact for any home owner. It has nothing to do with being a boomer - I simply pointed out that opendoor was lamenting that housing prices might go down - well yeah, they do. For everyone.

You seem like a really well informed and thoughtful poster. But you let your irrational hatred for boomers really get the better of you.

I don't think that an artificially engineered price crash is the solution, to be fair. I think that significant reforms to our outlook on zoning need to occur with a one time wealth transfer from developers to property owners occuring as upzoning turns SFH into more dense options (this doesn't mean towers).

Yeah, the Boomer stuff is just fun to poke and prod over. I am serious that it is an issue, but I am not casting blame so much as describing the generational circumstances that led us to this point.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

When you look at sprawl the new burbs really aren’t the problem. Comparable to the sunny side / hillhurst infill areas I believe. So at those densities it’s still not possible for everyone to have a short commute.

The question is how do you make a 3 bedroom Condo enough space and how do you convince Condo developers to build units with family friendly spaces. It’s a tough chicken and egg problem.

One thing that should be done is a large component of property tax should be on the lot square footage your a house occupies. A 50 x 200 lake bone vista lot should pay 3 times the density tax of a modern 35 x 100 lot. A condo might only have a few hundred square feet of lot size for this component. This would better reflect operating cost to the city then the current system. What percentage of property tax should be density based would be based on determining what proportion of city costs are sprawl based and what are population based and allocating appropriately. This should drive down the living costs of condo living.

The goal should be that each choice of lifestyle reflects the cost of that choice of lifestyle to the city with some progressive taxation of higher values property pay more thrown in.

When we think of sprawl we shouldn’t think of Yop Gobblers vs latte sippers by focusing on home location, instead we should focus on lot size.

Don't property taxes already capture the sq footage? A larger lot will be more valuable, all things being equivalent, because it's larger. The more desirable, the higher the sale value, and appraisal value. I assume when they do appraisals and compare equivalent lots to calculate a value, sq footage plays a part. For instance, if a house sells for $450 000 on a 5000sq ft lot, and an identical house next store gets appraised based on that, but is on a 7000sq ft lot, that one would be appraised higher.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

When you look at sprawl the new burbs really aren’t the problem. Comparable to the sunny side / hillhurst infill areas I believe. So at those densities it’s still not possible for everyone to have a short commute.

The question is how do you make a 3 bedroom Condo enough space and how do you convince Condo developers to build units with family friendly spaces. It’s a tough chicken and egg problem.

One thing that should be done is a large component of property tax should be on the lot square footage your a house occupies. A 50 x 200 lake bone vista lot should pay 3 times the density tax of a modern 35 x 100 lot. A condo might only have a few hundred square feet of lot size for this component. This would better reflect operating cost to the city then the current system. What percentage of property tax should be density based would be based on determining what proportion of city costs are sprawl based and what are population based and allocating appropriately. This should drive down the living costs of condo living.

The goal should be that each choice of lifestyle reflects the cost of that choice of lifestyle to the city with some progressive taxation of higher values property pay more thrown in.

When we think of sprawl we shouldn’t think of Yop Gobblers vs latte sippers by focusing on home location, instead we should focus on lot size.

This is already the case. But location matters too. And it should.

[peter12]

I would prefer a split assessment style on homes. That is, tax them on their highest and best use. If you live in a large single family home near an economic core where your property would be better off being townhomes/condos/or rentals, well that should be reflected in your property tax.

Also, a land value tax that captures people trying to arbitrage the upzone change in value.

I have ideas, people. I have them.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by peter12

Oh yeah, places like Sunnyside/Hillhurst are actually part of the problem. I guarantee that Community Associations have made sure that those areas are very difficult to rezone, even though they are high demand neighbourhoods that would benefit from a large influx of young workers wanting to live closer to downtown.

What? Have you seen the amount of new high density buildings in this area?

There is literally 3 under construction currently with 3 that opened in the last 2 years.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by peter12

I would prefer a split assessment style on homes. That is, tax them on their highest and best use. If you live in a large single family home near an economic core where your property would be better off being townhomes/condos/or rentals, well that should be reflected in your property tax.

Also, a land value tax that captures people trying to arbitrage the upzone change in value.

I have ideas, people. I have them.

It is. Property taxes rise with location proximity to downtown (as a general rule, factoring in desirable neighbourhoods/locations)

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Weitz

What? Have you seen the amount of new high density buildings in this area?

There is literally 3 under construction currently with 3 that opened in the last 2 years.

But it is always marginal - along transit routes etc... None of the proper urbanist blend of light commercial and medium density residential you see in Europe and parts of Asia.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is. Property taxes rise with location proximity to downtown (as a general rule, factoring in desirable neighbourhoods/locations)

Yes, but that is different from split assessment.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by peter12

A very Boomer thing to say.

But true nonetheless.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

But true nonetheless.

nm

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Don't property taxes already capture the sq footage? A larger lot will be more valuable, all things being equivalent, because it's larger. The more desirable, the higher the sale value, and appraisal value. I assume when they do appraisals and compare equivalent lots to calculate a value, sq footage plays a part. For instance, if a house sells for $450 000 on a 5000sq ft lot, and an identical house next store gets appraised based on that, but is on a 7000sq ft lot, that one would be appraised higher.

This is true but it isn’t based on the cost the city incurs as a result of property size. It’s based on the perceived value to a perspective buyer. It also doesn’t account for the class of home either. If you look at a 450k inner city condo vs a 450k suburban home they pay the same property tax. A person who chooses the 450k condo has less impact on the city but that isn’t reflected in tax rate.

What I want the system to do is reflect cost to the city in a component of city taxes but not just be punitive on people who can’t afford to live closer.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is already the case. But location matters too. And it should.

Why does location matter? Isn’t that just a function of the ability to afford and zoning restrictions. I’m not seeing a cost to the city based on where the impact occurs. The total acreage of the city remains unchanged.

[CroFlames]

The blaming of boomers is tiresome.

Boomers acted the way any rational consumer does. If Millennials and others choose inner city over the suburbs, the markets will respond accordingly. If they choose suburbs, they are exercising their freedom as a consumer same as the boomers did. There was not some Great Conspiracy to screw over future generations by inflating home prices with policy. Are boomers to blame for the continued building of new communities in the deep south and north of Calgary? As far as I can tell, it's millennials moving there en masse.

Toronto and Vancouver housing crisis was not caused by boomers.

[jayswin]

The tragedy in discussing housing fixes is that the real future likely holds a slow (already happening) then suddenly quick eroding of available jobs for the population across almost all industries due to automation with more unemployed than anyone alive has seen.

Followed by a catastrophic housing crash, then a new society filled with mass unemployment, violence and uprisings against governments and anyone that has money left.

[jayswin]

But it's still important to make the best decisions as a society to weather it as best as possible. Hint: Guaranteed minimum income and bringing the class disparity as close to together as humanly possible.

It's great to sit back and say "It's communism to take anything from anyone who's earned it!!!!" and try to latch on to policies that allow those with wealth to continue to keep inner city home values high, hoard wealth and then pass it on within family, but the reality is there will be a large correction coming and to continue to operate this way will likely contribute majorly to how we crater as a country compared to the other countries who will face the same correction.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The blaming of boomers is tiresome.

Boomers acted the way any rational consumer does. If Millennials and others choose inner city over the suburbs, the markets will respond accordingly. If they choose suburbs, they are exercising their freedom as a consumer same as the boomers did. There was not some Great Conspiracy to screw over future generations by inflating home prices with policy. Are boomers to blame for the continued building of new communities in the deep south and north of Calgary? As far as I can tell, it's millennials moving there en masse.

Toronto and Vancouver housing crisis was not caused by boomers.

On the blame side you can easily argue that policies reducing down payment requirements, enhancing Cmhc insurance, lengthening mortgage to allow Gen X and early millennials to buy homes all increased home prices. The Boomers just benefited the most from these poorly thought out initiatives.

[jayswin]

I'm with jammies, the blaming of boomers is a little useless and annoying. Laying blame is/was important to get to the root of any issue and make changes. Blaming a group beyond that purpose to just throw it in their faces is rude and unproductive.

Not to mention it implies that if you took all of us millennials and transported us to the time of boomers that we'd do better. Nope! Different humans, same stupid mistakes, such is our species.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I'm with jammies, the blaming of boomers is a little useless and annoying. Laying blame is/was important to get to the root of any issue and make changes. Blaming a group beyond that purpose to just throw it in their faces is rude and unproductive.

Not to mention it implies that if you took all of us millennials and transported us to the time of boomers that we'd do better. Nope! Different humans, same stupid mistakes, such is our species.

Or that all the boomers I know don’t have any of mine of my peers interests in mind. Which is false.