Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[C-One]

Originally Posted by GGnoRE

woah. applying first year econ too literally here eh

The point of the foreign-ownership tax is to make foreigners bear the deadweight loss created by government intervention while domestic citizens benefit from affordable prices.

Minimum wage is a different matter because hyper-inflating the cost to employers would do more harm to all of domestic consumers including the min-wagers in the long run.

Absolutely first year econ there. Logic remains though tax one group to benefit another. Justified or not. Foreign or not. Disrupting the market.

And it wont just be foreigners bearing the cost of the tax. It will be all pre existing homeowners (locals included) who say for instance if a tax is implemented make our home we wish to put up for sale a little more expensive and have fewer potential buyers and thus lower potential sale price and gain on sale.

[4444]

Originally Posted by Gululu

Gregor's house was sold yesterday by my friend

List price 1.78M; Sold price 1.98M;

wow, was it a shithole then?

[4444]

Originally Posted by C-One

Absolutely first year econ there. Logic remains though tax one group to benefit another. Justified or not. Foreign or not. Disrupting the market.

And it wont just be foreigners bearing the cost of the tax. It will be all pre existing homeowners (locals included) who say for instance if a tax is implemented make our home we wish to put up for sale a little more expensive and have fewer potential buyers and thus lower potential sale price and gain on sale.

and that's the quandary the politicians have, appease the few that cry the loudest complaining about foreign ownership by implementing a tax, thus bringing down the price of the house (total spend will end up being somewhat the same, just a portion will now be tax instead of capital), which negatively affects the 70% + of households that own by decreasing the value of their property by this amount, decreasing wealth effect, decreasing mood of purchasers, resulting in decreased spending in a time when just about every other canadian driver of GDP has shit the bed.

it will never happen in Canada. that petition is a joke, so what a couple 10, 20 thousand people signed it, who gives a damn, i'm sure a lot more ppl think killing seal pups is worse and would sign a petition, i don't see the canadian government stepping in there.

the only way for people to truly stand up is with their votes, and gregor is still in power, and so is crust clark, so we see how well that works!

[Traum]

Originally Posted by 4444

>70% home ownership in Canada, highest it's ever been (read into that what you will) - she's just pandering to the voting majority.

The Canadian figure is irrelevant for our discussion here -- since we are talking about Crusty Clark and the provincial direction on housing here, it is the BC figure that would be somewhat relevant.

It also makes me wonder, do the RE owners really make up for the voting majority? Also, do home owners that uses their properties as primary residences really prefer high RE prices? Remember, they have to pay property taxes on the their homes. With my family, for example, high RE prices hurt us more than it helps because we have to keep paying huge property tax on it, and we have no intention to sell.

100% of the voters need a place to live, and IMO, one of the top items on the government's agenda is to ensure that its citizens have easy access to the basic necessities in life:

- clothing
- food
- residence
- transportation

As far as I can see, the BC government has at least royally fxxked up 2 out of the 4 items, and groceries have gotten a lot more expensive in recent years as well. (The essential items on my grocery bill -- namely meat and veggies -- have easily gotten at least 10% more expensive now compared to say, 1/2 year ago.) Crusty and the BC Libs are NOT doing a good job.

[noclue]

why is the government responsible for rising grocery costs?

[4444]

Originally Posted by Traum

The Canadian figure is irrelevant for our discussion here -- since we are talking about Crusty Clark and the provincial direction on housing here, it is the BC figure that would be somewhat relevant.

It also makes me wonder, do the RE owners really make up for the voting majority? Also, do home owners that uses their properties as primary residences really prefer high RE prices? Remember, they have to pay property taxes on the their homes. With my family, for example, high RE prices hurt us more than it helps because we have to keep paying huge property tax on it, and we have no intention to sell.

100% of the voters need a place to live, and IMO, one of the top items on the government's agenda is to ensure that its citizens have easy access to the basic necessities in life:

- clothing
- food
- residence
- transportation

As far as I can see, the BC government has at least royally fxxked up 2 out of the 4 items, and groceries have gotten a lot more expensive in recent years as well. (The essential items on my grocery bill -- namely meat and veggies -- have easily gotten at least 10% more expensive now compared to say, 1/2 year ago.) Crusty and the BC Libs are NOT doing a good job.

Cdn figure is used as a proxy for Vancouver, so totally relevant for a simplified point made about proportionate voters.

homeowners are more likely to be middle class, slightly older, i.e. the key voting demographic.

what homeowner wouldn't want their house prices higher? you say house price = more property tax - in the long run that's not entirely true, as the gov. has to get their certain income so the rate will just change.

most homeowners partake in absolute stupidity, otherly known as the one asset approach, their home is their only asset, it's their nest egg, their retirement fund (not sure where they plan to live in retirement, mind you), so MOST DEFINITELY they want their house prices high.

[C-One]

Originally Posted by Traum

The Canadian figure is irrelevant for our discussion here -- since we are talking about Crusty Clark and the provincial direction on housing here, it is the BC figure that would be somewhat relevant.

It also makes me wonder, do the RE owners really make up for the voting majority? Also, do home owners that uses their properties as primary residences really prefer high RE prices? Remember, they have to pay property taxes on the their homes. With my family, for example, high RE prices hurt us more than it helps because we have to keep paying huge property tax on it, and we have no intention to sell.

100% of the voters need a place to live, and IMO, one of the top items on the government's agenda is to ensure that its citizens have easy access to the basic necessities in life:

- clothing
- food
- residence
- transportation

As far as I can see, the BC government has at least royally fxxked up 2 out of the 4 items, and groceries have gotten a lot more expensive in recent years as well. (The essential items on my grocery bill -- namely meat and veggies -- have easily gotten at least 10% more expensive now compared to say, 1/2 year ago.) Crusty and the BC Libs are NOT doing a good job.

Your family doesnt pay more tax just because the property value is accessed higher.

The city spends what it spends and that cost needs to be allocated among all the taxpayers.

If all the properties have an increase of 10% in property values it doesn't automatically mean you pay 10% more in tax.

Its based on the ratio to the total. If your house is 1/100 of the total assessed properties in the city, you would foot 1% of the cities expenditures reflected in the property tax bill. So if everyone's property value went up 10%, 20% or even 1000% you would still have 1% of the total value of the property in the city.



So if your family's property increased 20% while everyone elses' stayed the same then you would be paying more in tax since you would have more than the 1% of the total

[Traum]

Originally Posted by noclue

why is the government responsible for rising grocery costs?

The government is not responsible for rising grocery costs, but any responsible government will take measures to mitigate / minimize food prices that have gone out of line. If bread suddenly start selling for $10 a loaf, you bet the government is gonna step in and take measures.

In reply to 4444, I am simply going to say that a popular public policy is not necessarily a good one. A good public policy needs to be sustainable, and as far as housing is concerned, Vancouver has long surpassed the point of affordability. I agree that Crusty is catering the policy to existing RE owners. But they are the ones with a vested interest in the matter, and that vested interest of their is not necessarily a good thing for the city. The fact of the matter is, Vancouver housing prices are already at a level where those who work here can barely afford to live here. If the provincial government has a chance to do something about that, it should. To not do so is a dis-service to the long term sustainability of our city and our province.

[iEatClams]

I don't think the governments will put any restrictions or tax on foreign investment.

Everyone knows the developers donate a lot to clark and gregor, they won't do anything that would hurt the developers.

What is interesting is seeing if prices will at least level off when our currency gets stronger. Our dollar has gone down 20-25%. Which means if you needed to move $1 million dollars into Vancouver, now you can buy $1.25M house instead of $1M.

Also with the feds expecting to raise rates in the US in September, and if Canada follows & raises their overnight rate too, it may finally "cool" the market. I have my doubts.

[iEatClams]

Originally Posted by 4444

Cdn figure is used as a proxy for Vancouver, so totally relevant for a simplified point made about proportionate voters.

homeowners are more likely to be middle class, slightly older, i.e. the key voting demographic.

what homeowner wouldn't want their house prices higher? you say house price = more property tax - in the long run that's not entirely true, as the gov. has to get their certain income so the rate will just change.

most homeowners partake in absolute stupidity, otherly known as the one asset approach, their home is their only asset, it's their nest egg, their retirement fund (not sure where they plan to live in retirement, mind you), so MOST DEFINITELY they want their house prices high.

True, I'll take the increased in property tax, which is a few extra hundreds of dollars each year (the average property tax has only increased 2-5% per year - same rate as the city's budget increases) and have my property appreciate by $500,000 +.

Maybe they will sell, cash out and downsize or move to the interior or island to retire. I know some that have done that already.

Same with the employment talent in Vancouver - not many good jobs here, cost of living is too high - they pack up and leave.

[Ludepower]

They hiring 1600+ people for the new nordstrom downtown and premium outlet mall near the airport.

These are the kinda lousy jobs vancouver has to offer...servicing the rich.

[4444]

Originally Posted by Traum

The government is not responsible for rising grocery costs, but any responsible government will take measures to mitigate / minimize food prices that have gone out of line. If bread suddenly start selling for $10 a loaf, you bet the government is gonna step in and take measures.

In reply to 4444, I am simply going to say that a popular public policy is not necessarily a good one. A good public policy needs to be sustainable, and as far as housing is concerned, Vancouver has long surpassed the point of affordability. I agree that Crusty is catering the policy to existing RE owners. But they are the ones with a vested interest in the matter, and that vested interest of their is not necessarily a good thing for the city. The fact of the matter is, Vancouver housing prices are already at a level where those who work here can barely afford to live here. If the provincial government has a chance to do something about that, it should. To not do so is a dis-service to the long term sustainability of our city and our province.

you're mistaking public policy made by politicians and public policy that is in the best interest of the people of a constituency - the politicians will also make policy that is most likely to get them reelected. that, or that will appease those that fund/support them.

i think we both agree on the point here, what crusty does isn't right or in the best interest of the city / province on the whole in the long term, she'll just do as she does to get herself reelected.

[Tone Loc]

Originally Posted by Ludepower

They hiring 1600+ people for the new nordstrom downtown and premium outlet mall near the airport.

These are the kinda lousy jobs vancouver has to offer...servicing the rich.

No kidding lol. I love how all the politicians are trying to spin this as "job creation"... sorry but I don't think a bunch of low-wage retail and service jobs is really helping the economy in the long run. Just adds to job statistics which help nobody.

Vancouver has been/will continue to experience "brain drain" for as long as this housing market remains inflated. Simply because the same people who are smart/skilled enough to secure well-paying jobs in Vancouver are the same ones who leave, knowing they can enjoy a much better lifestyle in pretty much any other part of the country. Six figures in Vancouver doesn't take one very far, whereas the same income literally anywhere else means you are doing quite well...

[Z3guy]

Originally Posted by adambomb

Sigh.

This thread was more fun back in 2012 when it was full of doom and gloom on the Vancouver housing market. How every RS real estate expert here predicted in 2014-15 that Vancouver would suffer some sort of price crash and current homeowners would lose everything except the clothes on their backs. "Buying in Vancouver is a bad move." I remember hearing that back in 2012.

Now the crying is all about foreign ownership and money laundering and how prices are way too high and homes sit empty. Day after day people complain about how this current situation is all Christy's and her liberal gov't fault that no one can buy now, yet these same people passed on home purchases years ago because the media was fearmongering

Did anybody on RS not purchase a home back in 2012 because you thought the market would take a shit? Its ok to admit you were wrong now. +1.5mil for a teardown in Fraserview makes me wish I pulled more triggers back in 2012.

Hey 4444, the fundamental telling you anything yet?

[4444]

Originally Posted by Z3guy

Hey 4444, the fundamental telling you anything yet?

tells me not to buy.

you laugh all you want, i'm happy as heck as i am.

question is, would you buy a house today in vancouver at current prices?

[Z3guy]

I never doubted your happiness, just your advice about buying or not. You bring up many valid logical points, but everything about real estate in Vancouver is illogical! Makes no sense, but it continues to rise. I just came back from hk\china and have a different perspective now from their perspective. 5m in hk buys you a nice 1500 sq ft apartment in a nice area like central or repulse bay. When they see what you can get in van for 5m they are laughing! Actual houses in hk are 40m and up.

To answer your question, no I would not buy in ths market, but i feel fortunate I did jump in in 2007.

[NKC ONE]

5m hkd or 5m cad?

[asian_XL]

I believe 5mil Cdn for what Z3guy mentioned.
Our old and shitty 400sqft apartment in Tsim Sha Tsui worth like 800K, definitely not the price a normal people or people with professional job can afford here. By the way, we bought it for 200K back in 2006, so that's how crazy it is.

Originally Posted by 4444

question is, would you buy a house today in vancouver at current prices?

Who knows what's going to happen? My mother-in-law just bought a new apartment in Vancouver as investment, you can call that crazy. The point is you can buy whatever you like with your money, you bare the risk. There is no point to argue.

[Ludepower]

get in or be priced out forever

[multicartual]

Originally Posted by asian_XL

Who knows what's going to happen? My mother-in-law just bought a new apartment in Vancouver as investment,

What happened to buying property to live in?


Oh wait... everyone is a greedy fucking investor now!

[multicartual]

Originally Posted by Ludepower

get in or be priced out forever

Rent and be happy


Real estate is just a status symbol for the weak

[godwin]

I know quite a few parents decide to take reverse mortages (or 2nd or 3rd mortages) to fund real estate to "rent" to their kids. Why not in this kind of market? with mortgages so cheap and so easily servicable. I lived through the double digit mortgages in the 80s and 90s, the difference is night and day.

Basically people who bought in early benefits, people with no family ties or money have to raise the cash somehow.

Be financial educated, figure out what you can afford and just do what pleases and available to you. In that sense it is a lot like the discussion of exotics in the Automotive forum. No one can afford that 458 Italia.

Originally Posted by multicartual

What happened to buying property to live in?


Oh wait... everyone is a greedy fucking investor now!

[westopher]

Originally Posted by multicartual

What happened to buying property to live in?


Oh wait... everyone is a greedy fucking investor now!

Buying something you don't need, because you can, to drive up the price and profit for those who need it. North American ideology at its finest. Our society is awful. I'm all for being rewarded for hard work and good ideas, but maybe we would be a better society if profitable investments were limited to things that aren't basic needs, like shelter, water and basic raw foods.

[pengu]

Originally Posted by multicartual

Rent and be happy


Real estate is just a status symbol for the weak

Renting is so much more worth it in the lower mainland, you don't have to pay to fix anything and you can back out whenever you want. Plus renting is usually at least $500 cheaper.

[multicartual]

Originally Posted by godwin

Basically people who bought in early benefits, people with no family ties or money have to raise the cash somehow.

Why buy?


When you keep buying, you just pay into the Vancouver housing pyramid scheme that is driven by fear of being "priced out" and a desire for the status of saying you own instead of rent.