Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[smoothie.]

10k tax is nothing to some of them.

in 10 years, paying 100k in taxes over what its appreciated is a joke.

meanwhile, I'm excited to see what happens to Seattle

[Timpo]

WTF is this?

Is Telus in real estate business now?

https://fibre.telus.com/futurehome/?...toNov_Newsfeed

[Timpo]

ohh ok I guess they're trying to sell the equipment, not that mobile home itself.

[4doorVIP]

too many sq feet for a vancouver future home

[silva95teg]

Originally Posted by Timpo

ohh ok I guess they're trying to sell the equipment, not that mobile home itself.

It's showcasing what a connected home and automation could look like, not really current products they sell. Their point in it is the fibre network connecting it and what that could enable.

[hotshot1]

That $10k rule is so fucked. It infringes on our individual freedoms and violates the idea of private property.

On a philosophical perspective, if you buy something you own it. The government nor anyone else should be able to force you to do anything with it (assuming it was purchased legally). As an extreme example, if I want to buy 100 houses and leave them empty, I should be able to do it because I will have bought them and therefore own them. We can't continue to help the people not doing well by taking from the people doing well. Everyone has to be treated the same. If I have 10 cars, should they be able to force me to let someone drive the car because they can't afford to buy one? That's fucked.

Just because the value of property is high doesn't mean the government should be able to step in and regulate the market. This just causes more problems in the long run where loop holes pop up and the very people who they intended to help get fucked in the end. It happens over and over with government involvement.

Also, I would hope that the majority of you guys, if not all agree that it is immoral to use physical force against another person unless your life depends on it. With that in mind, the government is the ONLY entity that has authority to use physical force - they can arrest you. In this particular case, they're threatening to fine you. But they have to authority to do so, unless you don't give a fuck about freedom.

The whole premise is fucked morally.

[Harvey Specter]

Typical overreach by politicians who are trying to cover their asses. They all turned a blind eye when they had a chance to stem the flow of foreign money into our RE market but now it's too late and these laws won't do shit to soften the blow from a bursting bubble.

[Gumby]

One of my favourite bumper stickers:

Don't steal, the government hates competition.

[stewie]

Originally Posted by hotshot1

That $10k rule is so fucked. It infringes on our individual freedoms and violates the idea of private property.

On a philosophical perspective, if you buy something you own it. The government nor anyone else should be able to force you to do anything with it (assuming it was purchased legally). As an extreme example, if I want to buy 100 houses and leave them empty, I should be able to do it because I will have bought them and therefore own them. We can't continue to help the people not doing well by taking from the people doing well. Everyone has to be treated the same. If I have 10 cars, should they be able to force me to let someone drive the car because they can't afford to buy one? That's fucked.

Just because the value of property is high doesn't mean the government should be able to step in and regulate the market. This just causes more problems in the long run where loop holes pop up and the very people who they intended to help get fucked in the end. It happens over and over with government involvement.

I know that's a philosophical perspective and it may just be me but I think you're comparing apples to oranges there.

Anybody can take public transportation or even ride share. If someone can't afford a nice/new car they can always settle with a beat up 1980's civic that has more rust on it than paint.
I both agree and disagree with you when you say that if you've bought a hundred houses and want to keep them empty that's fine. But when a city is already dealing with a 1% rental rate it turns the guy with the hundred empty houses into a cunt who's fucking over more people than he realizes. If people can't afford it they can move elsewhere and their existing jobs will now be open to someone new, but who's going to take their job? The wealthy millionaires who don't even live here? The ones who do live here with multiple properties who I highly doubt would care to take on a job of someone who isn't able to afford a place and live here?

I've no problem with the city saying "look, this city is getting fucked and it'll only get worse from here on out if left alone. If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem."

[MarkyMark]

I think the biggest issue is that it's not just people on the low end of the salary spectrum that are being fucked, it's people who actually make good money that are being priced out. At the end of the day, a place to live is a basic necessity. If some rich guy wants to buy 100 houses and let them sit empty while it fucks over the rest of us, maybe he should pay more to keep them.

The government is the reason we got into this mess in the first place, so now they can't be the reason we get out of it? I'd say if there were any loopholes so far they all favored the rich. Taxing someones weekend getaway can't make it much fucking worse for us common folk who just want one place to live.

[wingies]

And don't forget, the people that are scooping up all the houses most certainly did not even earn the money here. Take money earned overseas, through corruption and free of tax and throw it into Vancouver. The financial playing field is not even to begin with.

Harvey Spectre said it best, the politicians didn't give a shit when this was happening. But now the public outcry is way too much to ignore, theyre throwing some band aid solution to the problem when the damage is already done and irreparable. Hoping this would have shown they "did something" for all their citizens coming up next election time

[Hondaracer]

To think this is actually going to lessen the stress on the rental market is a pipe dream though..

[Spoon]

Liberals are just trying to buy votes for the next election coming in 6 months. Likely whoever throws out the most cut throat policies on real estate will win because at the end of the day, immigrants can't vote.

[Ferra]

Originally Posted by hotshot1

That $10k rule is so fucked. It infringes on our individual freedoms and violates the idea of private property.

On a philosophical perspective, if you buy something you own it. The government nor anyone else should be able to force you to do anything with it (assuming it was purchased legally). As an extreme example, if I want to buy 100 houses and leave them empty, I should be able to do it because I will have bought them and therefore own them. We can't continue to help the people not doing well by taking from the people doing well. Everyone has to be treated the same. If I have 10 cars, should they be able to force me to let someone drive the car because they can't afford to buy one? That's fucked.

Just because the value of property is high doesn't mean the government should be able to step in and regulate the market. This just causes more problems in the long run where loop holes pop up and the very people who they intended to help get fucked in the end. It happens over and over with government involvement.

Also, I would hope that the majority of you guys, if not all agree that it is immoral to use physical force against another person unless your life depends on it. With that in mind, the government is the ONLY entity that has authority to use physical force - they can arrest you. In this particular case, they're threatening to fine you. But they have to authority to do so, unless you don't give a fuck about freedom.

The whole premise is fucked morally.

I really think it depends on the situation...
If some rich corporation started buying up every gas station in Vancouver and charging $5/L...are you okay with that?
They brought the gas station and supply chain, so they own it. By your logic, they should be able to do whatever they want and charge whatever price they want with it...right?

Fair or not, I think the empty house tax is a great policy (if it can be implemented well). It leads to less wasted resources and better efficiency. (A house sitting empty is a wasted resource)

[Hondaracer]

It's gonna take 4.5 million to setup and 1.5 per year to operate and be based on the honor system in self-reporting your empty home.

That sounds like a wasted resource to me

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

To think this is actually going to lessen the stress on the rental market is a pipe dream though..

This.

The new regulation appears harsh and heavy handed, but until we see how its actually implemented and enforced, and likely challenged, I get the feeling this is more a PR move to appease the masses.

As has been discussed, there appear to be loopholes and gray areas, just like the 15% foreigner's tax.

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by hotshot1

That $10k rule is so fucked. It infringes on our individual freedoms and violates the idea of private property.

bullshit.
When your rights and freedoms start affecting a whole community, then it's time to remove those freedoms.

example one: 104 Avenue Centre


After years of being a hideout for asian investment dollars, the building was bought and sold numerous times. The Fraser health authority tried to lease, and it was shut down. Then the RCMP tried to lease it, but that deal fell through. Way back in 1998, they had multiple lessees for the asian mall. But the landowner wanted the easy money. Even today, the current owner had this to say,

Pitt, the owner of Nevada-based Wildcat Ventures, said the building has been vacant because he doesn’t want to lease to multiple tenants.

“The status of the building is that I have held the building for investment, not for the long term, and for one major tenant,” Pitt said. “I’m not interested in subdividing the building, and so there were a couple situations that involved a health-care user [Fraser Health], but that did not come to pass so the building remains available.”

In the meantime, it's a hothouse of drug activity, and an eyesore in an area that doesn't need more eyesores. Plus, at 275,000' it skews the real estate data for Surrey.

But it's the landowner's right to leave it empty, right?

[originalhypa]

example two: Surrey Public market



Sitting vacant for 17 years, the site has brought in nothing but crime and transients, and has been an eyesore at the corner of King George and 64th. 70,000 cars pass by this intersection every day.

"But hypa", you say.... "What a fine piece of real estate that is. Why don't they do something with it?"

Reportedly, the building has been for sale on and off for more than a decade.

In 2010, Mayor Dianne Watts was fuming after the owner at the time, Walter Chan, who owned the Smitty’s Restaurant chain, apparently reneged on a promise to donate the market to the Salvation Army.

Chan reportedly offered the parcel to the Sally Ann in 2007, but was apparently trying to sell it again.

Watts was not amused. “It’s very frustrating because he’s had several offers on it over the years and they’ve all fallen apart at the last minute,” the mayor said in 2010. “He doesn’t want to do anything with it, he won’t sell it and now this.”

The property became overgrown with vegetation and the former market building has served as a sort of hobo jungle as homeless people seek shelter there. The place has also attracted plenty of attention from the city’s graffiti artists.

Many of those offers fell apart because of one owner's greed, and a realization that his lack of action cost him developable land.

But the former market is built on top of a stream, a tributary of Hyland Creek, which runs into the Serpentine River. Provincial regulations have changed since the market was built, and significant setbacks from the creek would now be required on the property in order for new development to take place.

One builder told The Leader that with new setbacks factored in, there are about two acres of developable land on the site, making it a questionable investment. What’s more, rats have gnawed through wiring inside the building, which some professionals say requires about $4 million in repairs.

So yeah, it's their right to own vacant properties. But when those properties start to encroach on a neighbourhood's right to security and peace, then you need choose between what's good for one millionaire, and what's good for a whole community.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by wingies

And don't forget, the people that are scooping up all the houses most certainly did not even earn the money here. Take money earned overseas, through corruption and free of tax and throw it into Vancouver. The financial playing field is not even to begin with.

You make it sound like most of the sales are via foreign money. Local buyers, whether for living or investing, out number foreign buyers significantly when looking at all the different types of home sales.

I personally know of a number of people born, raised, living locally in my age bracket looking to buy a secondary home to rent out, ride the wave of high rents and hope for continued appreciation in home values.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by Spoon

Liberals are just trying to buy votes for the next election coming in 6 months. Likely whoever throws out the most cut throat policies on real estate will win because at the end of the day, immigrants can't vote.

It never fails to surprise me how these token gestures are often enough to sway some naive idiot into thinking that the Libs are at least willing to do something now, so they are still better than the NDP imbeciles who will just spend our province into debt and recession.

[Ferra]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

It's gonna take 4.5 million to setup and 1.5 per year to operate and be based on the honor system in self-reporting your empty home.

That sounds like a wasted resource to me

Most of Canada tax reporting is based on the honor system.
You can have a business with $10,000,000 profit and put $1,000 as its income. Your tax bill will be based on whatever numbers you put on your tax return.

Similarly even for personal reporting, you can put in a bunch of bogus medical/moving expense, charity donation etc to reduce your tax bill.

They don't ask for proof until you get audited.


To add, there are probably thousands of immigrant who would be deemed resident of Canada, yet not reporting their millions of income made offshore. (Where do you think they got the money to buy millions dollars house, when they are reporting $0-$20K income per year.) I think a harsh CRA crackdown on unreported foreign income will be a lot more effective in curbing the foreign capital rushing into canada, and a lot of extra money for our government.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Ferra

I really think it depends on the situation...
If some rich corporation started buying up every gas station in Vancouver and charging $5/L...are you okay with that?
They brought the gas station and supply chain, so they own it. By your logic, they should be able to do whatever they want and charge whatever price they want with it...right?

Fair or not, I think the empty house tax is a great policy (if it can be implemented well). It leads to less wasted resources and better efficiency. (A house sitting empty is a wasted resource)

Who do you think owns most of the gas stations right now. Also there is only one refinery supplying the lower mainland. the could charge what ever they wanted.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by UFO

You make it sound like most of the sales are via foreign money. Local buyers, whether for living or investing, out number foreign buyers significantly when looking at all the different types of home sales.

I personally know of a number of people born, raised, living locally in my age bracket looking to buy a secondary home to rent out, ride the wave of high rents and hope for continued appreciation in home values.

The difference is the locals who buy a secondary place are renting it out, which is at least helpful to the rental market.

[Mr.C]

City of Vancouver passes empty homes tax
LOCAL
by NEWS 1130 STAFF AND THE CANADIAN PRESS
Posted Nov 16, 2016 5:39 pm PST Last Updated Nov 16, 2016 at 7:29 pm PST

(iStock Photo)
Close caption
VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) – Vancouver has voted to implement a one per cent tax on empty homes in a bid to alleviate the city’s crunched rental housing market.

The tax, which is the first of its kind in Canada, will apply to non-principal residences that are left empty for six months of the year or longer.

Home owners will be required to self-declare whether their property is vacant and could be subject to fines up to $10,000 for false reports.

Properties under renovation, owners who are in hospital and condos with strata rental restrictions will all be exempt from the tax.

Eight city councillors voted in favour of the tax Wednesday, while three opposed the levy.

Councillors also directed city staff to work with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and other organizations to collect data on possible impacts of the tax and report back next year.

Looks like Gregor is really worried about getting voted off.

[Eastwood]

They should just ban foreign ownership. I can't imagine its Canadians residing in Vancouver that are leaving their homes empty.