Jump to content

(BC) NDP's 30-point plan on housing remains stale five years later


Recommended Posts

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-bc-ndp-housing-plan-five-years-later

 

 

Quote

 

VICTORIA — Five years ago this week, the New Democrats launched “a 30-point plan for housing affordability in B.C.,” arising out of the election platform that helped bring them to power.

B.C. is worse off than ever.

“It has never been so unaffordable to buy a home in this country,” to quote the latest survey of housing affordability by RBC Economics, released at the end of last year.

“To qualify for a mortgage on the purchase of a typical home in the Vancouver area, a buyer needed to earn a minimum of $200,000 annually in the third quarter of 2021,” the survey reported.

“A year later the qualifying income had soared 34 per cent to an astounding $268,000.” In Victoria, the comparable figure was $216,000. Ottawa: $149,000. Calgary: $123,000.

RBC further calculated that in Vancouver it would take 95.8 per cent of a median household income to cover the cost of a requisite mortgage.

 

The NDP played with a few ideas and then gave up - but at the end of the day they ignored the only thing that matters.  THE PROBLEM CANNOT BE SOLVED UNLESS WE BUILD A LOT MORE HOMES.

Every single effort that ISN'T building more new homes at a much accelerated pace than we have been is pointless.  If you have 90 homes, and 100 people who want homes, then prices will go through the roof until the 10 percent at the bottom can't afford it and are completely cut off.  And that's true of purchase AND rental. And that's precisely what we're seeing, the lower half is getting completely cut out of the purchase market and is now being squeezed hard in the rental.

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other alternative is to reduce the population, but that entails cutting back on immigration and is a long term process. Hopefully, the price of housing will help to encourage people to move out of BC. Not a realistic solution, I know, but it is heartbreaking to see the natural beauty of BC trampled under foot, and clear cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

This would probably do quite a bit to add the rental market in cities.   

Sadly no, It's already pretty repressed. The number of airbnb units is actually a pretty small percent of the units in total and is more often a basement suite or the like which wouldn't necessarily go on the 'regular' rental market. For example there's only about 250 - 350 in vancouver and the city is going after many of them and as i mentioned not all of them would be suitable for permanent rental. The vast majority of stratas (if not all) don't allow it and are aggressive about policing it, and there's now HUGE fines for people who do it.

It would help a very small amount, but it certainly wouldn't solve the problem.

37 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I wonder if conservatives would oppose this based on some “property rights” principle?  

Historically no.  It's recognized that doing this impacts the people around the unit significantly in a number of ways.

Conservatives would probably like to see it not unreasonably restricted - in other words allowed where appropriate - but honestly this is the least of the 'gov't interference' in people's properties (especially strata) in the last few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

This would probably do quite a bit to add the rental market in cities.   

Banning Airbnb and presumably every other STR platform would also cause homelessness especially amongst seniors for whom Airbnb represents a viable occupation with the family home once the kids move out.  Around here lots of 'kids' who do manage to buy a home can only do so because they run a STR to make owning their home more affordable. 

The key is increasing density often in spite of nimby's who've kept density low. Most of the old local nimby's have died or moved on and now in addition to my Airbnb I can legally also rent an apartment to a younger co-worker that was displaced from her old place to make way for a...you know what.  I can also offer her some employment cleaning our STR and hopefully extend our means to stay in our own home for as long as possible.

The demand for housing has been here ever since I came to the coast 50 years ago and built a driftwood shack on Long Beach. We're not all monsters and some of us do want to be part of the solution, I'm just thankful I can be and yes it is profitable.

I'm sorry?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what the government does with the exception of getting into the construction business, construction will be the same as it is now and the cost of housing will keep climbing.

A construction company is in business to make profit. It costs what it costs to put up a building. Materials, labour and fees are part of the cost and then there is profit.

Also, people themselves are the ones driving up costs by bidding and over bidding for the homes.

As for rentals, well, it costs a lot to put them up too. And then there is the maintenance and support costs along with the associated taxes and fees.

Expectations may be a bit too high, both on peoples part as well as governments BS promises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

No matter what the government does with the exception of getting into the construction business, construction will be the same as it is now and the cost of housing will keep climbing.

A very high percent of the cost of a new home comes from the cost of gov't regulation and taxation methods. If that weren't there the cost of a home would drop by almost 50 percent or more (depending on the location to a degree).

ANd the only reason people are bidding up the price is that there simply isn't enough to go around. If you knew there were ten houses out there you could buy if you didn't buy THIS one - why would you go crazy bidding on this one? People bid high because they're afraid they may not find another house to bid on, or by the time they do prices will have shot up again.

There is much the gov't can do - but it requires more than one thing across more than one level of gov't. Which is why everyone's afraid to tackle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

A very high percent of the cost of a new home comes from the cost of gov't regulation and taxation methods. If that weren't there the cost of a home would drop by almost 50 percent or more (depending on the location to a degree).

ANd the only reason people are bidding up the price is that there simply isn't enough to go around. If you knew there were ten houses out there you could buy if you didn't buy THIS one - why would you go crazy bidding on this one? People bid high because they're afraid they may not find another house to bid on, or by the time they do prices will have shot up again.

There is much the gov't can do - but it requires more than one thing across more than one level of gov't. Which is why everyone's afraid to tackle it.

I think you are waaaay overestimation permit etc fees.

The cost of building a house ranges form $90 to sky is the limit per square foot. Land, materials, labour are so different in various regions of Canada you can not really give a general answer.

The thing is, when housing prices are talked about, it is most often in Vancouver or GTA.

Surprisingly, there are lots of houses (housing) for sale in Canada, the major cities included. The COVID crisis drove prices out of control and it was the panic buying public to blame for that.

In my area, while prices have not gone down dramatically (they are down quite a bit though), housing sales have gone waaay down, 20 to 30%. It is now a buyers market.

Government does not control labour, material or land prices or cost of development. Yes, they can reduce development fees but then, who would pay for that infrastructure? The roads, the sewage systems, fresh water systems, the electrical systems and all that is needed for the development? Oh, the buyer?? Diving up prices but just in a different way?

Outside of huge government subsidy, as they did in the 70's (AHOP)which was a massive failure, there is no way to control housing costs.

In the 70's under AHOP (Assisted Home Ownership Program) people got basically free money (non repayable loans) to buy new homes, which they sold a few years later, after AHOP was cancelled, for huge profits and prices went up.....again.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/anatomy-of-a-crisis.pdf

I had lots of friends that had AHOP homes back then.

I understand BC has a new form of AHOP now again (Affordable Home Ownership Program). I am not familiar with it but, I suspect it will be a failure too.

It is very easy to say the cost of homes is a government problem but, it is not.

Oh and, in my opinion, owning a house is not a right. Having housing may be but owning is not owning.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I think you are waaaay overestimation permit etc fees.

People don't realize how high this is. It's a lot more than you think for most developments. When you consider the costs of permits, the cost of paying the experts to prepare the documents for those permits, the costs of holding the land while you wait for all the permits and zoning issues etc etc to go through, (which is huge and can go on for years) and the costs those delays to build create for you, it's actually pretty damn high.

 

17 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The cost of building a house ranges form $90 to sky is the limit per square foot.

well lets be generous and say something like 200 dollars a sq ft.  So - a 1500 sq ft home should cost about 300,000 dollars to build.  In even the areas around the major metros that home is now selling for about 1.5 million or more.

So it's not the cost of construction that is driving prices up as high as they are. Sure those costs are high, but we could have homes people could afford.

42 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Government does not control labour, material or land prices or cost of development.

Well they do play a factor actually. High taxes, high inflation, and reduced opportunity due to gov't policy all mean that workers demand more money to live before they'll work and that does drive up costs.  Gov't taxes such as the carbon tax plays a huge role in building material costs. etc etc.

Sure - there's a lot the gov't doesn't control but they absolutely can have a powerful impact on costs.

44 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

n the 70's under AHOP (Assisted Home Ownership Program) people got basically free money (non repayable loans) to buy new homes, which they sold a few years later, after AHOP was cancelled, for huge profits and prices went up.....again.

This is the problem with ANY plan designed to help buyers "afford " the market. There have been dozens, they all end the same.

The market will always suck up as much as it can for the cost of a home, so if supply is even a little tight prices will aways be whatever the maximum is that people can afford. So if you make it so that people can afford more, prices will increase to account for that.

You have to address it from the supply side. Nothing else works for long,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

People don't realize how high this is. It's a lot more than you think for most developments. When you consider the costs of permits, the cost of paying the experts to prepare the documents for those permits, the costs of holding the land while you wait for all the permits and zoning issues etc etc to go through, (which is huge and can go on for years) and the costs those delays to build create for you, it's actually pretty damn high.

 

well lets be generous and say something like 200 dollars a sq ft.  So - a 1500 sq ft home should cost about 300,000 dollars to build.  In even the areas around the major metros that home is now selling for about 1.5 million or more.

So it's not the cost of construction that is driving prices up as high as they are. Sure those costs are high, but we could have homes people could afford.

Well they do play a factor actually. High taxes, high inflation, and reduced opportunity due to gov't policy all mean that workers demand more money to live before they'll work and that does drive up costs.  Gov't taxes such as the carbon tax plays a huge role in building material costs. etc etc.

Sure - there's a lot the gov't doesn't control but they absolutely can have a powerful impact on costs.

This is the problem with ANY plan designed to help buyers "afford " the market. There have been dozens, they all end the same.

The market will always suck up as much as it can for the cost of a home, so if supply is even a little tight prices will aways be whatever the maximum is that people can afford. So if you make it so that people can afford more, prices will increase to account for that.

You have to address it from the supply side. Nothing else works for long,

I have been around for a long time. I have seen and lived the ups and downs of house prices in various regions of Canada.

The cost of not h[just building but the cost of the land (and it's ups and downs) and the cost of development which is extraordinary to building houses. Someone has to pay for the development. if you say government, the taxepayer will pay, if you say developers then buyers will pay. Point is, someone has to pay one way or another. The cost is passed on.

The buyers are the "market" and they are the ones that have the most influence on prices. The bidding wars that went on in the last 3 years were absurd. The "market" now has folks that cannot afford their homes, that cannot afford a 1% interest rate hike. That is not government, that is people with no foresight and not thinking ahead. People overbid and bought way beyond their means and, in my opinion, will see many of those folks default.

I say that because I lived through buyer panic and default when I lived in Edmonton in the early 80's. I bought a 5 year old house for $80K that was sold for $110 when new. Alberta had to make laws to prevent people from buying houses for $1 to help out the defaulters.

Supply is a problem for sure. Supply is also a problem for builders. Be aware though, builders and developers are not going to take chances and will not build if they cannot sell and make money.

Oh and one last thing about labour. Here in Ontario, the industry says there is no way they are able to build the 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years because  "An estimated 100,000 construction workers are needed to ensure the province can hit its target of 1.5 million homes built in the next decade."

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

The cost of not h[just building but the cost of the land (and it's ups and downs) and the cost of development which is extraordinary to building houses. Someone has to pay for the development. if you say government, the taxepayer will pay, if you say developers then buyers will pay. Point is, someone has to pay one way or another. The cost is passed on.

The cost of the land is determined by the value of what you can build on it. It has always been this way for developers.

So the cost of the land goes up to match the value of the housing or whatever you plan to build and sell. It's a reverse drive not a forward drive.

THat's why the cost of building is the same everywhere (more or less) but the cost of the land fluctuates radically. Location location location.

If there were enough houses then prices would go down and that would mean the land value would go down as well.

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The buyers are the "market" and they are the ones that have the most influence on prices. The bidding wars that went on in the last 3 years were absurd. The "market" now has folks that cannot afford their homes, that cannot afford a 1% interest rate hike. That is not government, that is people with no foresight and not thinking ahead. People overbid and bought way beyond their means and, in my opinion, will see many of those folks default.

Because there are not enough homes. That is INEVITABLE.  And it's not the last few years, my family has always been involved in real estate and i remember when it suddenly became a thing to put in full price offers and then suddenly there were bidding wars with buyers sitting out in their cars as agents ran in and out with new offers.  That was UNHEARD of.  And that started in the early 2000's in parts of the country.

No subject offers etc suddenly became the norm.

Some reports say that we've been falling behind by 100,000 homes per year since 2016 just to keep the problem from getting worse.  Some now say we're a million homes short in this country.

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

It is also a problem for builders. Be aware though, builders and developers are not going to take chances and will not build if they cannot sell and make money.

For sure. And the current structure STRONGLY discourages developers from building enough homes to match demand.

That needs to change. There isn't any 'one' thing you can change to fix the problem. We need to change how projects are green lit, we need to green light a lot more of them and streamline the process, we need to change how developers are taxed on new homes before they're sold, changes to lending and funding rules would help, and we may need to look at something like a gov't based 'real estate investment bank' to offset some of the issues created by overregulation in the past to get builders to build more homes than they can immediately sell right now.

It ain't easy. But at the end of the day the solution is more homes. Nothing else will make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The cost of the land is determined by the value of what you can build on it. It has always been this way for developers.

So the cost of the land goes up to match the value of the housing or whatever you plan to build and sell. It's a reverse drive not a forward drive.

THat's why the cost of building is the same everywhere (more or less) but the cost of the land fluctuates radically. Location location location.

If there were enough houses then prices would go down and that would mean the land value would go down as well.

Because there are not enough homes. That is INEVITABLE.  And it's not the last few years, my family has always been involved in real estate and i remember when it suddenly became a thing to put in full price offers and then suddenly there were bidding wars with buyers sitting out in their cars as agents ran in and out with new offers.  That was UNHEARD of.  And that started in the early 2000's in parts of the country.

No subject offers etc suddenly became the norm.

Some reports say that we've been falling behind by 100,000 homes per year since 2016 just to keep the problem from getting worse.  Some now say we're a million homes short in this country.

For sure. And the current structure STRONGLY discourages developers from building enough homes to match demand.

That needs to change. There isn't any 'one' thing you can change to fix the problem. We need to change how projects are green lit, we need to green light a lot more of them and streamline the process, we need to change how developers are taxed on new homes before they're sold, changes to lending and funding rules would help, and we may need to look at something like a gov't based 'real estate investment bank' to offset some of the issues created by overregulation in the past to get builders to build more homes than they can immediately sell right now.

It ain't easy. But at the end of the day the solution is more homes. Nothing else will make a difference.

There are many government (federal and provincial) programs for first time home ownership.

Businesses are in business to make a profit.... no more, no less. Government should never become a charity. There is already too much "free" stuff.

Owning a home is not a right. If you can afford one, and afford to keep it, OK.

I do not believe it is a government problem to make homes affordable. I did with less "stuff" to be able to afford a home. Look at the state of low income housing.... it's occupants care about keeping their homes in nice condition???

We may or may not agree on things and that is OK too.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

There are many government (federal and provincial) programs for first time home ownership.

Yes -but by and large they don't work. They just drive up the price of housing.

4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Businesses are in business to make a profit.... no more, no less. Government should never become a charity. There is already too much "free" stuff.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here.  Did someone say businesses weren't in it for profit? Gov't is in the business of providing services and also providing  fertile ground for the market forces that the country needs. If they interfere with those forces by excessive beurocracy, it may require something from them to offset that to allow the ship to right itself.

Quote

Owning a home is not a right. If you can afford one, and afford to keep it, OK.

Sure but if people don't have a place to live they riot and burn cities. That's just life, no matter what you might think.  So at the end of the day there has to be enough product to satisfy the need.

Quote

I do not believe it is a government problem to make homes affordable.

Generally speaking I agree. But - if the gov'ts actions are making homes more expensive in the first place, then that changes the picture. If they're going to cause the problem, then there is a need for them to help fix the problem.

AND - we're not just talking about buying here. This affects rentals just as much. A home is a home whether it's rented or sold and if there's not enough and you can't buy and can't rent then there's going to be  a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...