Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by westopher

I’d like to know how 2 people making 110k EACH cant manage to sort their finances out. That isn’t complicated.
Simple advice, spend what you need to spend now.
Worry about retirement in a smaller capacity. I’m all for planning ahead, but if you can’t figure out how to raise your family on your current income that’s the first thing to look at when you are at their point of preparation.

If you read the Globe and Mail enough, and this column specifically they are notorious for publishing stories like this featuring wealthy people's First world problems.

Bob, 55 and Kathy, 54 make a combined income of $257,000. They want to maintain their lifestyle through retirement while buying each of their 5 kids a house outright and still be able to keep their chalet in Whistler and take monthly vacations to France. Kathy's worried her Defined benefit pension won't allow her to keep her 2nd townhouse she uses to shtup her Zumba teacher on the weekends

oh the horror!

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by quasi

I live in this neighborhood, this month is my 10th year here I bought when they were still developing and have watched it grow and change.

The parking is pretty bad, I actually parked in front of my house yesterday that was the first time in probably 6 months? I'm lucky in the sense that I don't have to park on the street, my wifes car and my motorcycle are in the garage and I can park my SUV in the parking spot next to our garage.

I don't think I'd be exaggerating if I said that I'm the only person within a few blocks that doesn't have renters everybody on my block does, easily 95% of the homes in the area do.

The problem is where you have multiple rental situations. They rent out a coach house and then they rent out the basement and sometimes even the main house.

Doesn't Surrey have bylaws about parking during the day? I know Vancouver has this:

Parking when there is no signage | City of Vancouver

Section 17.6 (f): Between 8:00am and 6:00pm every day, do not park your vehicle for more than 3 hours in front of residential or commercial properties that you do not own or work at.

The 3-hour bylaw restricts all-day commuter parking to allow daytime access for residents to their homes and for business owners and employees to their workplaces.


It use to be as long as you lived on the same block but the wording is now "...properties that you do not own or work at" so it at least gives the home owner a fighting chance of claiming their space in front of their own home. Get home by 3 pm!

[R. Mutt]

^ exactly what Tapioca said. To add, I think the key is to do it either now or in 3 years give or take. Rate of inflation+market values vs salary increases and savings essentially cancel each other out. Sell and take what equity you have to get the 20% out of the way. They will be back at square one when they bought their first home, but they’ll have balance in their home with potentially some more room to grow as a family.

With their combined salary they should have no issue buying a 2bed/2bath in the 800k-1m range - especially considering their age. They should either do it soon or wait for interest rates to come back down. I mentioned before a few pages back they would increase another 2-3 times, which they did. They’ll increase again next year, so I estimate they won’t get back down to the 2.5-2.9% fixed five year for at least another 2 maybe 3ish years.

[Tapioca]

One more thing I will add is that the couple has a child. Having a child is a game changer and requires decisions that lead to greater stability. Considering that supply for rental housing will be tight for 5-10 years, it makes little sense to rent if they want to provide a stable environment for their child. I doubt these people are ramen noodle eating, basement dwellers with a subscription to Mr. Money Moustache or r/personalfinance.

They already have skin in the game. Renting and investing the difference with a child and tight rental supply going forward is a risky strategy.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Doesn't Surrey have bylaws about parking during the day? I know Vancouver has this:

Parking when there is no signage | City of Vancouver

Section 17.6 (f): Between 8:00am and 6:00pm every day, do not park your vehicle for more than 3 hours in front of residential or commercial properties that you do not own or work at.

The 3-hour bylaw restricts all-day commuter parking to allow daytime access for residents to their homes and for business owners and employees to their workplaces.


It use to be as long as you lived on the same block but the wording is now "...properties that you do not own or work at" so it at least gives the home owner a fighting chance of claiming their space in front of their own home. Get home by 3 pm!

No, you can stay in the same spot for up to 72 hours.

[kula]

Originally Posted by quasi

Do they though? How do you know which suite is legal and which isn't? They aren't the ones registering them or not registering them in most cases, the landlord is.

If I rent out a place it's my burden to be sure I'm not breaking the law. It's not like landlords are handing out copies of permits to renters or have them posted in the suite, it's impossible to tell which suite is registered as you have the option to register one or the other.

In my opinion, both parties knew the suites are illegal, it's just that everyone else on the block is doing it so they assume they can get away with it.

When I interview potential tenants for my properties, most of them ask if my rental suite is legal or not. I thought that was a standard part of tenants doing their due diligence. I haven't tried myself, but you could probably call city hall to verify if the property has a permit in place if you think the landlord is lying.

Then again, if these renters have no stable job and can only afford rent that's way below market rate, a landlord with a legal suite will not consider them. And when cheap illegal suites are their only option and they are desperate for a place to live, asking such questions will jeopardize their chances of successfully renting the place, so they don't ask.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by kula

In my opinion, both parties knew the suites are illegal, it's just that everyone else on the block is doing it so they assume they can get away with it.

When I interview potential tenants for my properties, most of them ask if my rental suite is legal or not. I thought that was a standard part of tenants doing their due diligence. I haven't tried myself, but you could probably call city hall to verify if the property has a permit in place if you think the landlord is lying.

Then again, if these renters have no stable job and can only afford rent that's way below market rate, a landlord with a legal suite will not consider them. And when cheap illegal suites are their only option and they are desperate for a place to live, asking such questions will jeopardize their chances of successfully renting the place, so they don't ask.

This is where the problem is they aren't even cracking down on illegal suites that's a whole different animal, they are cracking down on multiple suites in the same residence which is believed to have had an impact on the parking problem in the area. You could check with the city assuming that information was available and they could tell you yes this address has a registered legal suite but you don't know if it's the one you're in or the other renter.

Ultimately the landlord is renting the suite, they are the main ones responsible for the issue and should be held accountable.

[kula]

Originally Posted by quasi

This is where the problem is they aren't even cracking down on illegal suites that's a whole different animal, they are cracking down on multiple suites in the same residence which is believed to have had an impact on the parking problem in the area. You could check with the city assuming that information was available and they could tell you yes this address has a registered legal suite but you don't know if it's the one you're in or the other renter.

Ultimately the landlord is renting the suite, they are the main ones responsible for the issue and should be held accountable.

I don't own properties in Surrey but it looks like the public can look up whether a suite or coach house is registered on the City of Surrey website. I've tried with a few random addresses and the results do specify "secondary suite" or "coach house", which helps clarify which specific unit or suite it is.

Secondary Suite Fee Online Inquiry | City of Surrey

The City of Surrey website also states that only one registered secondary suite is permitted, assuming conditions are met. Therefore, if there is another rental suite, then one or both is illegal because multiple suites are not permitted in single family zoning.

I agree that the landlord will ultimately be on the hook. Sadly, that's just how our legal system works. If the penalty is severe, the rental market will be squeezed once again and these tenants will face bigger challenges when looking for affordable housing.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by kula

In my opinion, both parties knew the suites are illegal, it's just that everyone else on the block is doing it so they assume they can get away with it.

When I interview potential tenants for my properties, most of them ask if my rental suite is legal or not. I thought that was a standard part of tenants doing their due diligence. I haven't tried myself, but you could probably call city hall to verify if the property has a permit in place if you think the landlord is lying.

Then again, if these renters have no stable job and can only afford rent that's way below market rate, a landlord with a legal suite will not consider them. And when cheap illegal suites are their only option and they are desperate for a place to live, asking such questions will jeopardize their chances of successfully renting the place, so they don't ask.

I think even people with stable income have no choice. There are far more people looking for a place to rent than there is place for rent. Most people are just happy if they can find a place to rent. This is what drives the illegal suite. I am sure the gov can start by say limiting immigrants , international students
and temp workers till there is actually enough housing to house locals first. But sadly all gov see is $$$ so they don't give a shit about its citizenship. Just like how JT is lowering the requirements for immigration, increasing the number family reunions, increasing and making temp workers easier to apply for a job in Canada, increasing number of international students which only makes the housing situation worse as supply isn't even catching up.

Just speaking from experience co-worker rented out her 1 bedroom 500sq ft furnish apartment that's near metrotown for $1700 a month. That's insane. Of course it was an international students who rented it. Let's say it is unfurnish it would still cost $1500 a month. I mean a single working person would not be able to afford the place. Lets say the person makes a net income of $3500 a month. Minus rent, expense I would say only $100 to $1200 is left if lucky. One of my friends is renting a room in a basement suite for $700 a month. A room that's at most 100sq ft.

When my parents wanted to rent their basement put for $1200 I was shock. I mean I wouldn't pay $1200 to live there. The carpet needs to be changed, walls and rooms need to be repainted, new toilets and sinks, fridge and stove all needs to be replace in my books. To my surprise tons of people wanted to see the place most have deposit ready and wanted to rent right away.

I don't think building apartments near skytrain hub is going solve the issue. BC is big the gov should try to move people away from Vancouver and into other parts of BC. Start building better transit system/highway that connects to other cities give companies tax credits if they start in certain area help build housing etc etc etc...... Do what other cities in China are doing. Set certain part of the cities to be certain financial/tech sector. We can like divide BC into different sections and each one will house different industry. So the population is spread across BC more evenly.

[6thGear.]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

Just wait till more apartments are being built and more traffic but the gov have 0 intention to fix the traffic issue other than closing streets and making them into bike lanes.

True but there's alternate routes to take. I had no choice but to sit though Massey Tunnel and Knight bridge before.

Originally Posted by Tapioca

Ahh, the typical millennial couple in Vancouver. What would you do if you had their dilemma?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...1/?service=amp

Sounds to me they are big spenders and don't want to give that up

[UFO]

Originally Posted by 6o4__boi

[url=http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2017/10/05/homeowners-vs-renters-in-surrey-clayton-heights.html]
Feel bad for the renters...that statement about renters not being tax payers takes the cake.

But at the same time, can't really blame the homeowners for being frustrated with the density

He's not wrong though. Owners pay their property tax, thats probably something like 3000-4000, on top of their regular taxes. Its not even just about parking too. Having 'affordable' rents bring a different demographic into the neighbourhood, a couple of houses no big deal. When entire blocks and communities do this you end up a ghetto. There's extra garbage generated, increased traffic, increased strains on the social systems in the area, etc etc.

Having the fortune of never been a real renter, I do feel renters are given too many liberties and rights from a lot of the stories I've read and heard about. I've also seen the other side in my line of work, classic slumlords over renting their properties. But at the end of the day if your landlord is dicking you around, its your right to pick up and move somewhere else. You put up or shut up.

Side note, I had always thought owners renting out illegal suites are at risk of fairly heavy fines for bylaw infractions. So the city is evicting the tenants? Or landlords because they are bring fined?

[UFO]

Originally Posted by 6thGear.

Sounds to me they are big spenders and don't want to give that up

Their budget is reasonably tight, even frugal in some areas. I would probably tell them to reevaluate their retirement goals, given where they are at currently and what they want to accomplish right now. I'd love to retire at 55 too

Looking at their expenses and incomes, they have $5000/mth leftover after servicing their debt, which is more than what many families have to live each monthly. I'm not sure where the problem lies. First world problems indeed.

[Hondaracer]

The Sullivan area in surrey there is pretty much a ghetto at this point and i definately side with the city on their decision

My grandparents got into sullivan relatively early, probably 2006/2007? and were at the end of a dead end road, by the time my grandma sold in 2015 there were probably 600+ more units within the vicinity.

They did not have a suite, had a detatched garage where they parked their only vehicle, and some days i still could not find parking within 2 blocks of their place. The variance of suites caused tonnes of straight up skids to move into the area as well, because you'd have a decent basement suite, but then you'd have a shitty little coach house over the garage that was 400 sq feet, perfect for your average crack head.

Ive heard many stories about places like Yorkson, and surrounding areas near fort langleu being break-in centrals because of how close all the homes are, one guy i used to work with said his GF's house got broken into in the middle of the day while he was sleeping upstairs and the two neighboring houses got hit that same day as well.

Density creates shit in most cases, thats why areas like whalley etc will never really clean up unless people start getting priced out because there is so much volume, people are somewhat forced to rent to anyone. And especially people who bought as an investment and have seen very slow, if not stagnant gain in their property value, they just want it rented and paying the mortgage, fuck a background check or deep reference reviews, just get in there and start paying the mortgage.

IMO (and maybe this is just wishful thinking as i have an illegal suite lol) but i dont see CoV ever cracking down on illegal suites because shit is so tight as is, if they started kicking people out of illegal suites the prices for legal places would be insane, or at least, even more insane than they are now.

Would be a decent reason to reclaim my basement and put a sauna in though

[stewie]

question

There was a listing my realtor sent to me in my email and it stated there was an open house over the weekend from 2 - 4pm. Couple days later the same listing popped up on realtor.ca and rew.ca and they both said open house. It sat like that for the better half of a week but on Saturday morning the live link posting from my realtor now said open house cancelled and the 2 other sites no longer said anything about it.
My realtor is on vacation so he's got his co worker looking after me until tomorrow. I gave him a call but he was in the middle of something and suggested I give the listing agent a call to help speed things up. I call her and ask to confirm everything and she flat out says no, there was never an open house to begin with and I must've misread the page because it's always been appointment viewing only. I tried to tell her that I've 2 separate listings printed out with the open house hours on it but she still flat out refused to believe me.

Something wrong there? She seemed very defensive when I tried to tell her that I had the listings printed in front of me.

I sent a text to the temp realtor asking to get me a viewing sooner than later. 2 hours later he calls and says it's now got an accepted offer so I wont be seeing it.


Is it common for this to happen? Honest slip up on their end?

[boibuddha]

That's nothing unusual. It happens all the time, the seller is happy with an offer and doesn't feel the need to have an open house.

More often then not, the listings don't get updated after they are initially posted. They often don't get taken down until the keys have exchanged hands too, which could be two or three months down the line.

[Rallydrv]

^ or shitty listing agents who don't know what they are doing.

Won't believe how many I have met recently. Can't believe how they even can pass the exam

[stewie]

Originally Posted by boibuddha

That's nothing unusual. It happens all the time, the seller is happy with an offer and doesn't feel the need to have an open house.

More often then not, the listings don't get updated after they are initially posted. They often don't get taken down until the keys have exchanged hands too, which could be two or three months down the line.

I get it if there's an offer they're happy with and close the open house because of it, but for the realtor to respond the way she did when I told her I had a printed out listing that showed it having an open house she wouldn't accept that what I had was real and that I must be misreading the listing that I had as if there was never an open house to begin with.

[Euro7r]

Originally Posted by stewie

I get it if there's an offer they're happy with and close the open house because of it, but for the realtor to respond the way she did when I told her I had a printed out listing that showed it having an open house she wouldn't accept that what I had was real and that I must be misreading the listing that I had as if there was never an open house to begin with.

When I see some potential listings I am interested in, I just send it to my agent and let the agent find out for me. I've noticed listings that get accepted offers but not taken down, so it kind of wastes my time doing the contacting lol.

[kr4l]

Real estate and commercial property agents are the laziest people in the world. If you want something done right, my advice is to do it yourself and call the sellers agent directly

[CCA-Dave]

Originally Posted by kr4l

Real estate and commercial property agents are the laziest people in the world. If you want something done right, my advice is to do it yourself and call the sellers agent directly

I've had the exact opposite experience with who I consider to be a very good agent. Not only was he ultra-proactive on listings for me. I'd email him listings I found (but were outside my original search parameters) and he'd instantly know "that one has a pending offer, that one has a bidding war, that one was just listed but you don't want it because ____". He was _ON IT_, and is always on it.

But the agent who was looking for me in Squamish was content to simply connect me to the auto-email system and if it flagged something I liked I could pursue it. So I have seen both sides.

A good agent will work for you, and find you the right fit for sure. My Port Alberni agent took me through every garage / shop first, and watched my body language. We didn't even go into a couple of houses as he knew instantly that the shop wasn't going to work for me.

A lazy agent, and I had one in an other town, would spend half a day taking me to places with a single-car garage duplex...even though I told them the absolute minimum I could do was two-car garage with two spaces on the driveway.

[punkwax]

Originally Posted by CCA-Dave

I've had the exact opposite experience with who I consider to be a very good agent. Not only was he ultra-proactive on listings for me. I'd email him listings I found (but were outside my original search parameters) and he'd instantly know "that one has a pending offer, that one has a bidding war, that one was just listed but you don't want it because ____". He was _ON IT_, and is always on it.

But the agent who was looking for me in Squamish was content to simply connect me to the auto-email system and if it flagged something I liked I could pursue it. So I have seen both sides.

A good agent will work for you, and find you the right fit for sure. My Port Alberni agent took me through every garage / shop first, and watched my body language. We didn't even go into a couple of houses as he knew instantly that the shop wasn't going to work for me.

A lazy agent, and I had one in an other town, would spend half a day taking me to places with a single-car garage duplex...even though I told them the absolute minimum I could do was two-car garage with two spaces on the driveway.

Devil's advocate chiming in:

"that one has a pending offer" could mean the commission structure isn't as favourable for the buyer's agent.

"that one has a bidding war" could mean the listing agent has fucked your current agent over before and they don't want to do business.

"that one was just listed but you don't want it because I could make more money more easily if you buy the other one I know you're interested in"

My point really is, if you see a house you're interested in, look at it. Don't let your realtor sway your opinion. Check it out and make your own decision. Too many realtors play games out there with people's hard earned money. And I've had good experiences. I just don't let them dictate the play.

[Harvey Specter]

Court orders developer to reveal condo-flipper info

A Federal Court judge has approved at least one court order that will require a British Columbia developer to turn over information to tax officials about people who bought and flipped condo units before or during construction.

And several similar applications are under way, reflecting the federal government's efforts to crack down on potential tax cheating in the presale market.

A July 25 Federal Court order requires the developers of the Residences at West, a Vancouver condo project at 1738 Manitoba St., to provide the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) with documents related to presale flips, also known as assignments, in the building, including proof of payments and correspondence between the developers and people who buy the assignments.

That order followed a June 29 application from the federal government.

In September, the Minister of National Revenue applied for court orders related to One Pacific, a Concord Pacific project, and Telus Gardens, a downtown project developed by Westbank Corp.

Both developers said they would comply with the request for documents.

"Customer information is protected by privacy laws and is not at the developer's liberty to disclose unless ordered by the Court," Matt Meehan, senior vice-president of planning at Concord Pacific Developments Inc., said in an e-mail.

"To protect our customers' information and ensure any release will be compliant with the law, we have asked CRA to obtain a court order, which we will adhere to."

In an e-mailed statement, Westbank said it would comply with the minister's application.

The CRA is investigating potential tax cheating in the presale market.

Developers presell units in projects to obtain bank financing. Those sales agreements can be "assigned," or flipped, to somebody else before the building is finished.

A unit may be flipped several times before a project is completed. But only the transfer of legal title from the developer to the final purchaser is registered with the B.C. land title office.

That means the CRA does not know the identities of any buyer but the final one, and has no way to check whether the others have paid applicable taxes on those transactions.

The provincial government last May announced new regulations designed to limit assigning: Sellers have to consent to the transfer of the contracts, and any resulting profit must go to the original seller. But those new rules apply to single-family homes, not condo presales.

As the CRA heads to court to obtain data on presale buyers and sellers, some observers say the provincial government could cool speculation in the presale market – and support federal tax-enforcement efforts – by changing reporting requirements.

Presale purchasers may include people who are not Canadian residents and whose profit from flipping a presale contract would be subject to a federal withholding tax, said Richard Kurland, a Vancouver immigration lawyer.

He used the example of a person from Iran who buys a presale contract for $100,000 and sells it for $125,000 a month later. Under the Income Tax Act, that profit – because it went to someone who is not a tax resident of Canada – would likely be subject to a 25 per cent withholding tax, he said.

"If nobody knows that you're from Iran and not a tax resident, and nobody withholds the money, you just walked off with $6,000 tax-free," he said.

If information on buyers' identities were routinely provided, the agency could more readily check to determine if, for example, anyone was claiming the principal-residence exemption on more than one property, Mr. Kurland said.

Asked if the CRA would like the province to make changes such as requiring routine disclosure of the identities of presale buyers, agency spokesman Bradley Alvarez said in an e-mail that, "any additional information, including that obtained from other governments and third parties, enhances the CRA's ability to detect non-compliance."

The CRA has found some flips are reported incorrectly or not at all and "the CRA welcomes any endeavours to obtain any information that can assist the Agency in detecting non-compliance."

Developers support the CRA's goals, but have to take privacy regulations into account, said Anne McMullin, president of the Urban Development Institute.

"It's not the developers not wanting to hand over information, it's, 'Let's do this safely,' because of privacy laws," Ms. McMullin said.

The NDP, which came to power after the May election, had said while in opposition that the Liberals were not doing enough to curb speculation in B.C. real estate.

In its election campaign platform, the NDP promised to set up a multi-agency task force to fight tax fraud and money laundering in the B.C. real estate marketplace.

Finance Minister Carole James was not available for an interview.

In a statement, her office said the province is monitoring the federal government's court action, and tax fraud is "something that is taken very seriously."

The B.C. government is working on a comprehensive housing strategy, and any policy or legislative changes will be made public once that strategy is developed, the statement added.

[MG1]

Originally Posted by kr4l

Real estate and commercial property agents are the laziest people in the world. If you want something done right, my advice is to do it yourself and call the sellers agent directly

That's the case in just about any profession these days. I shy away from younger agents, because most of them are in the profession to make a quick buck at all costs.

I have this go to guy who is older than I am, LOL. He is caucasian (read in to that all you want) and very experienced. He is well known, reliable, and trustworthy. Old school in his ways, but he's survived this long in the business and has clients spanning generations. He's been successful because of his integrity and hard work. He is very understanding and listens to your needs. He's somewhat retired and only works with clients he's known over the years and their family members. Clients and their children/children's children. There are still some good ones out there in a sea of incompetence and slime balls.


Just my two bits...........

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by kr4l

Real estate and commercial property agents are the laziest people in the world. If you want something done right, my advice is to do it yourself and call the sellers agent directly

This is true when we have the market condition of Vancouver.

Friend who's looking for a house recently got a RE agent (just someone random they met at an open house) and I got say he's utterly incompetent.

Every single showing they see, the agent would say "oh how great this house is". And if they bring up any negativity, the guy would say "but house hunting is about compromises... you have to look at the bigger picture". And when they see something they like and would like to present an offer, the agent basically told them to submit the highest offer they can without giving ANY opinion whatsoever given the market data RE agents have access to...

When my friend told me this, I told him to switch an agent, because the guy is just looking to make a quick bucks. Of course he wants you to buy whatever house he shows you and submit the absolute best offer as it would be the most likely to be accepted.

I gave my friend the example of my commercial RE agent's workflow in comparison:
1. I tell him the ballpark of the price range I'm looking to invest, and criteria
2. He keeps a constant alert on properties as soon as they hit the market (often before becoming listed)
3. He analyses the trend and gives me suggestions based on his data
4. He sends me listings that might be outside of my criteria but that are still a good deal.
5. When we check a showing, he actually goes through all the pros and cons... as well as raising any potential issues
6. Upon making an offer, he checks all the listings and sale record to give me the best suggestion.

Then I told my buddy that if his agent can't do at least half of these, he should keep on looking. Because an agent should at least do that much if they are actually acting in your best interest.

[RiceIntegraRS]

Originally Posted by kr4l

Real estate and commercial property agents are the laziest people in the world. If you want something done right, my advice is to do it yourself and call the sellers agent directly

Sometimes the sellers agent won't even speak to u. I did that when my realtor wasn't working for me and 3 realtors i called didn't even wanna speak to me. They said "get ur realtor to call me or if ur not happy with him I'll represent you"

I changed realtors to younger guy who alil less busy, less experienced and was more willing to bend over backwards for me. And I couldn't of been more happier with his service. He never pressured me into anything, and he made the trek from coquitlam to surrey every time I wanted to view a place.