MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If you increase the supply of something, you reduce its price. That's just how it work.

Theoretically, however in a world where new residential construction margins can be low, and previous sale comparisons keep price and seller's expectations up, IMO it takes a drop in buyers to below 0 for prices to dip far enough to the length we need.

Sure, if supply increases and you reduce interested buyers from 15 to 2, you lower bidding up on properties, which will bring prices and comparables down somewhat, but stuff will still sell in short order at prices comparable to the last string of sales. You just need one buyer per property and it's still a seller's market so low offers don't close deals.

You need a period of time where properties begin to sit on the market, and then price expectations get adjusted. In order for that to happen we'll need people to stop moving here in the numbers they are, because we won't be able to tip the other way and build more than 1.0 unit per family moving here. We'll always be in a deficit for quite some time.

Then as soon as values drop due to lower demand, developers stop building because construction costs are still the same (now higher than the beginning of this conversation) and they stop building because they don't make money, or even lose money over holding costs of finished product.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Also, when people move into new housing, even if it's expensive, wherever they were living before becomes available. The article linked above discusses, including citations to research on the topic.

Agree with you on this benefit, but it's probably a complicated study to determine the trickle down impacts on affordability. In a perfect world, someone would move up to the $700k townhome, and everyone would move up a $100k tier below that leaving open a $400k house or $300k condo adding to supply at that end of the market. However, you probably have people downsizing from their $1.0M house, and people moving here trading across their $2M dilapidated house in Toronto.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The study compared it to cities with similar population trends but different rates of new housing approval (Omaha, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Kansas City)

They claim it isn't quite that simple apparently:

At a high-level, Minneapolis has been very effective at building housing over the past decade, leading major American Midwestern cities in housing construction per capita over the last five years. This is in spite of a slower population growth (around 1% since 2017) than the other high supply cities such as Columbus and Omaha (both have grown around 2%). Clearly, Minneapolis is doing something right to build homes.

While it may be tempting to attribute this solely to supply-side reforms, there are several complex factors affecting the Minneapolis environment before and after the 2040 Plan’s implementation which make assessing the policy’s impact challenging. Unfortunately, we do not have access to sophisticated econometric research similar to that carried out in Auckland that can effectively control for these factors, isolate the plan's impact, and make specific policy effectiveness claims. As a result, we must consider these local factors when analysing time-series trends and correlations, in order to draw conclusions about the success of reforms.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Torture

The more I have this debate the more I realize how hard it is to convince somebody with facts when they've already made up their mind based on feelings. Like, I literally just posted the article which references studies in Auckland and Minneapolis. It literally talks about cases like Elbow Park, etc in there, that yes, some high priced homes will be made, but that increased supply still helps.
Want to go dispute that? Fine, read the multiple papers that are cited and tell me where they got it wrong but this "what about Elbow Park / Houston / wherever" is tiring.

People that study planning and urban studies have across the board said policies like this are beneficial. Are they the silver bullet, no, they're part of a solution. (just like this strategy). Want to dispute that it doesn't work? Fine, but bring some stronger arguments.

It’s someone bizarre because people form an opinion based off theory or feeling or a very loose understanding of something, and then when provided actual information that is contradictory to their feeing, they’ll put more effort into disputing the validity or relevancy of that information instead than they did forming their original opinion in the first place.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s someone bizarre because people form an opinion based off theory or feeling or a very loose understanding of something, and then when provided actual information that is contradictory to their feeing, they’ll put more effort into disputing the validity or relevancy of that information instead than they did forming their original opinion in the first place.

Welcome to the real world. We're happy to have you.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s someone bizarre because people form an opinion based off theory or feeling or a very loose understanding of something, and then when provided actual information that is contradictory to their feeing, they’ll put more effort into disputing the validity or relevancy of that information instead than they did forming their original opinion in the first place.

The hell you say?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Theoretically, however in a world where new residential construction margins can be low, and previous sale comparisons keep price and seller's expectations up, IMO it takes a drop in buyers to below 0 for prices to dip far enough to the length we need.

Sure, if supply increases and you reduce interested buyers from 15 to 2, you lower bidding up on properties, which will bring prices and comparables down somewhat, but stuff will still sell in short order at prices comparable to the last string of sales. You just need one buyer per property and it's still a seller's market so low offers don't close deals.

You need a period of time where properties begin to sit on the market, and then price expectations get adjusted. In order for that to happen we'll need people to stop moving here in the numbers they are, because we won't be able to tip the other way and build more than 1.0 unit per family moving here. We'll always be in a deficit for quite some time.

Then as soon as values drop due to lower demand, developers stop building because construction costs are still the same (now higher than the beginning of this conversation) and they stop building because they don't make money, or even lose money over holding costs of finished product.



Agree with you on this benefit, but it's probably a complicated study to determine the trickle down impacts on affordability. In a perfect world, someone would move up to the $700k townhome, and everyone would move up a $100k tier below that leaving open a $400k house or $300k condo adding to supply at that end of the market. However, you probably have people downsizing from their $1.0M house, and people moving here trading across their $2M dilapidated house in Toronto.

Housing policy isn't meant to address immigration/migration.

You've said yourself, having more houses relative to buyers drops prices. That's it. The more we enable people to build, the more we'll see prices soften, exactly as you said.

Sure immigration could negate that, but the same levels of immigration without increasing housing supply would make the situation even worse.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Housing policy isn't meant to address immigration/migration.

You've said yourself, having more houses relative to buyers drops prices. That's it. The more we enable people to build, the more we'll see prices soften, exactly as you said.

Sure immigration could negate that, but the same levels of immigration without increasing housing supply would make the situation even worse.

A housing policy isn't meant to address immigration policy and migration. You don't say.

We can't possibly build enough to have more houses relative to buyers based on the current predicted population increase. The demand is so high, that all that is achieved is more people actually get housing, not at any reduced price. Sure, it helps alleviate things getting worse, but improving the situation is the aim, not just maintaining it.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

A housing policy isn't meant to address immigration policy and migration. You don't say.

We can't possibly build enough to have more houses relative to buyers based on the current predicted population increase. The demand is so high, that all that is achieved is more people actually get housing, not at any reduced price. Sure, it helps alleviate things getting worse, but improving the situation is the aim, not just maintaining it.

It's not about whether housing prices drop, it's whether they are lower relative to the alternative scenario of making no changes...

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

A housing policy isn't meant to address immigration policy and migration. You don't say.

We can't possibly build enough to have more houses relative to buyers based on the current predicted population increase. The demand is so high, that all that is achieved is more people actually get housing, not at any reduced price. Sure, it helps alleviate things getting worse, but improving the situation is the aim, not just maintaining it.

I'm confused. We're saying that because immigration, the housing thing can't work.

Do you think we can fix the problem without a housing component, or no?

Our municipal government can't do much directly about immigration or migration, so isn't the housing aspect a very critical and pertinent component of the overall solution?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

It's not about whether housing prices drop, it's whether they are lower relative to the alternative scenario of making no changes...

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If you increase the supply of something, you reduce its price. That's just how it work.

That's what I responded to.

I believe it's a housing and affordability strategy.

[kevman]

I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind but we live in a SFH in an M-CG district and it's great. We share the community with great people from all walks of life. It turns out the student renters, young families, old retirees and everyone in between all bring something different to the community.

10/10 would recommend!

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I'm confused. We're saying that because immigration, the housing thing can't work.

Do you think we can fix the problem without a housing component, or no?

Our municipal government can't do much directly about immigration or migration, so isn't the housing aspect a very critical and pertinent component of the overall solution?

All I've said is when demand is 10x supply, even if you increase supply at the lofty amounts we hope to, we're still at 5x demand over supply. That's still enough demand to snap up available units instantly, keeping sale prices high.

Nothing I've said in either thread is opposition to redevelopment.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

A housing policy isn't meant to address immigration policy and migration. You don't say.

We can't possibly build enough to have more houses relative to buyers based on the current predicted population increase. The demand is so high, that all that is achieved is more people actually get housing, not at any reduced price. Sure, it helps alleviate things getting worse, but improving the situation is the aim, not just maintaining it.

That seems like an argument in favor of trying harder to increase housing supply, not giving up.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That seems like an argument in favor of trying harder to increase housing supply, not giving up.

100%, which is why I posted Westbrook as an example of an area, which there are many, that could be used today to add thousands of housing units, however for some reason the developers that own the land there are dragging their feet for years now.

Those areas are a major part of the solution.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

In terms of success for Minneapolis how much can be attributed to policy changes and how much to population changes? If I'm not mistaken the population saw a decrease in 2018/19 and is growing at a much slower rate than similar cities.

It almost certainly had more to do with the effects of the 2020 summer protests and COVID on the City of Minneapolis (which is only a small part of the metro area). The University of Toronto's study of cellular usage shows downtown Minneapolis is at the bottom for recovery, just ahead of Portland and SF.

https://downtownrecovery.com/charts/rankings


Minneapolis's transit recovery also remains well below the American average, as of Q1 2023 ridership was barely 50% of Q1 2019.


https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uplo...rship-APTA.pdf
https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uplo...rship-APTA.pdf

[jammies]

Originally Posted by kevman

I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind but we live in a SFH in an M-CG district and it's great. We share the community with great people from all walks of life. It turns out the student renters, young families, old retirees and everyone in between all bring something different to the community. !

Ah, someone ok with the poors! But what about my right to not share public spaces with those lesser than me? How can I brag about my exclusive neighborhood if they let any riff-raff with only a paltry million dollar townhouse live there?

[topfiverecords]

Still a long way to go on the zoning changes.

Zoning changes would require public hearing
Any components that require land-use changes or bylaw amendments will have to include a public hearing.

This includes the divisive provision for blanket R-CG zoning across the city — an “upzoning” that will increase density by allowing for the construction of row houses and duplexes on land currently zoned for single-family homes.

The process of changing the base residential district to RC-G can take up to nine months, according to Ward.

“There’s a process of preparation, notification, public communication, public input, and then a public hearing of council and then a proposal to approve at council,” he said, noting the strategy’s full implementation is on a “much longer-term horizon.”

Frano Cavar, the governmental relations director of the Calgary Construction Association (CCA), called council’s approval of the housing strategy an “important first step,” but stressed that a potential roadblock the city will face in its implementation is an ongoing labour shortage in the construction sector.

Citing Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey from July, Cavar noted Calgary’s construction industry is in the midst of a labour shortage of 2,500 to 4,000 workers. He worries the shortage will hinder construction project timelines and add to the overall costs of new builds.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ved-whats-next

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Still a long way to go on the zoning changes.






https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ved-whats-next

Plus in many cases, the city is overriding restrictive covenants which is not legal. Drove market up in the case of RC-1 properties due to the covenant. I believe they would be legally liable for valuation drops. You can change zoning but a covenant which is an owners promise and obligation is out of the question.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by jammies

Ah, someone ok with the poors! But what about my right to not share public spaces with those lesser than me? How can I brag about my exclusive neighborhood if they let any riff-raff with only a paltry million dollar townhouse live there?

Finally someone gets it.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

Plus in many cases, the city is overriding restrictive covenants which is not legal. Drove market up in the case of RC-1 properties due to the covenant. I believe they would be legally liable for valuation drops. You can change zoning but a covenant which is an owners promise and obligation is out of the question.

In the meeting council discussed with legal that they cannot override restrictive covenants that they are not a party to and they do not have a legal stake in. So no, they aren't overriding them.