What a craaazy night at St. Andrew’s-Wesley, for a night that included threats of a riot inside the church, hymn-singing, multiple requests to people to PLEASE STOP YELLING, and some actual information about what the two main candidates have to say about homelessness and affordable housing in the city.
The tweetreporting by my various colleagues — Ian Bailey and Rod Mickelburgh at the Globe, Jeff Lee at the Sun, Stephanie Ip at 24 Hours, political gadabout Michael Geller and various others I can’t remember — was spectacular. You should check it out at #vanelxn.
It’s hard to sum up the event with so much going on at some many levels, but one comment I do have: It was hard to understand why people from Occupy Vancouver were at the event. They demanded to be let in.
They frequently yelled so much when Gregor Robertson and Suzanne Anton were talking that we couldn’t hear them, occasionally chanting “Why are we listening?” and shouting “Liar.” (Tip 1: If you don’t think people have anything worthwhile to say, perhaps don’t come to events where they are speaking.)
Then they were furious and threatened to riot when they didn’t get to ask all the questions they had lined up to ask at the end of the night. (Tip 2: If you want to have time to ask questions, don’t take up so much of it disrupting the evening.)
Okay, that digression aside, here’s some actual information from the evening, which Wendy Pedersen from Carnegie Community Action Project asked if I’d put up, since people couldn’t hear what was going on sometimes, especially at the beginning when we were asking them for yes/no answers.
Here are those questions and answers: (Could the candidate teams please correct me if I’m wrong on any of these?)
1. Should the Downtown Eastside be maintained as primarily a low-income neighbourhood? I think I heard “yes” from both. (Suzanne tried to say something about in the short term, but we didn’t allow that.)
2. Do you think there should be more supervised injection sites? Yes, from both
3. Have you ever given money or food to a homeless person? Yes, from both
4. Were you able to buy your first house without help from your family? No, from both
5. Do you think the private market alone can come up with solutions for affordable housing? Yes, from Anton; No, from Robertson
6. Would you support a speculator tax or limit on offshore buyers of residential real estate? No, from both.
7. Will there be people living on the street in 2015? No, from both
8. Can you guarantee the majority of people who end up in the city’s 14 social housing buildings will be formerly homeless people? Yes, from both
9. Have you been to the shelter at 201 Central since it started? Yes, from both
10. Should the provincial shelter funding be made into a permanent program? Not sure on this, but I think Anton said no; Robertson said yes.
11. Should more social housing be built in the Downtown Eastside? Anton said no; Robertson said yes.
12. Should affordable housing units be built outside the Downtown Eastside? Both said yes.
13. Do you agree with no-barrier shelters? Think both said yes.
14. Would an inclusionary zoning policy, one where you require developers to build a certain percentage of affordable units into their projects like Richmond does, be workable in Vancouver? Both said No
15. I can’t remember what this question was.
The other 9 questions we asked were:
1. Both of you talked about attracting more business to Vancouver, which will mean growth. How will growth affect existing problems of affordable housing and homelessness? (Suzanne: Growth will bring jobs and jobs are how you pay for housing. Gregor: It’s a challenge and the city has to use its land assets to leverage more affordable housing.)
2. What will be your strategy this winter if the province continues to say it won’t give money for the four temporary winter shelters that are currently unfunded? (Both: Will push to get it from the province)
3. How will you balance the density you both say the city needs with neighbourhood consultation? (Suzanne: Put it in the areas where it works best, i.e. along transit, in southeast Vancouver, which could have taken more, at Oakridge, etc. Gregor: Work with neighbourhoods to create plans for growth and development that they can live with. Have started new planning processes for DTES, West End, Marpole and Grandview-Woodlands)
4. What is your plan to construct affordable housing outside the Downtown Eastside? (Suzanne: Development along transit corridors and at nodes; cutting red tape; removing obstacles for developers. Gregor: Using city land and assets, work with various partners, reduce parking, etc.)
5. Why wasn’t affordable housing created at the Olympic Village and what is your plan for the city land next to the village that will be developed in the future? (Lots of blaming going on, each pointing the finger at each other. In the end, Suzanne said likely city land nearby will have to be developed with market housing to pay for the big debt on the village that Vision has created. Gregor said future land will be developed with a mix of housing and that the current village units are selling well, city is doing best it could with village considering the mess the NPA left.)
6. What would you do to push for a national housing strategy? Push. Blah blah blah.
7. The NPA has been in charge of this city longer than any other party and has promoted “market-based solutions” for housing supply and affordability. How can people have confidence in you when that strategy has resulted in sky-high housing prices?
8. Vision’s program for creating new rental stock, STIR, was very controversial in some areas. Would you continue it and how would you make it more transparent for people so they know what developers are getting? (Gregor: I didn’t get a clear sense of what he might change about the current program to make it more palatable to those objecting. Did talk about the rental crisis in the city, the fact that 1,000 STIR units are under construction or in the pipeline with no objections from residents. Suzanne: Claimed new rental not needed because thousands of condo units being bought and then rented out all the time. Said taxpayers had to shell out $5 million in benefits to the developer of the project at Davie and Bidwell in order to get 49 high-end rentals.)
9. Would you create a shelter for aboriginals in the city? Yes.
K, done blogging for the night. Please add your comments and observations, as I’ve missed a lot here.
41 responses so far ↓
1 jesse // Nov 8, 2011 at 12:03 am
No curbs on speculation. Obviously not a wedge issue. I wonder if their slate agrees with them.
2 Glissando Remmy // Nov 8, 2011 at 12:50 am
The Thought Of The Night
“What a waste of time!”
The organizers should have called it “The Last Liar Standing From The Two” “The Worst Developer Money Could Buy” or “Vote For Me Or You’ll Be Homeless For Christmas”, but they couldn’t, as out of a dozen candidates for Mayor, including the Independents, only two were invited. Whaaa?
Democracy sucks, eh?
Some people asked me why didn’t I throw my hat in the ring.
That’s why.
I’m allergic to BS, it weakens me. Same as what Kryptonite did to Superman.
And I am also fed up with listening to Gregor’s rhetoric.
‘Homelessness’ is only another euphemism used in the quest for votes, as “Poor, sick , in need of help person, sleeping on the street” doesn’t sound as good.
‘I’ll do the best I can, with the resources at hand, for all the people of Vancouver. Period.’
That would have been my platform.
My only platform.
No gimmicks, no empty promises, no BS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg
You’ll have to learn to live with or through this…
“Nine… Ee… leven… A Lot!”
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
3 Roger Kemble // Nov 8, 2011 at 2:10 am
I never asked for or received help from my family including building our first family home near Lighthouse Park in 1964.
The reason your kids (actually mine can and do: I’m the only renter in this family) cannot afford their own home is because money piled on compounding interest money is never ending and will probably be the downfall of our way of life unless OCCUPY gets a fair hearing . . .
Money as debt. Suzanne probably hasn’t a clue. Gregor probably does and is being coy.
I chose not to own when I returned to Canada in 1998, (although for sale signs were sprouting like swamp grass) because I’m tired of being on the bum end of the ponzi.
And I’m happy now: I’m on the receiving end of the ponzi.
4 Jean // Nov 8, 2011 at 4:01 am
Useful to bring up the topic for debate –in general.
However I doubt any politician of any political stripe in power, would be able to handle the situation best on Occupy encampments. At least neither of these candidates, were like Mayor Nenshi in Calgary a few days ago who remarked to a protester about getting their meds. It truly angered mental health advocates…and rightly so.
It’s in the Calgary Herald newspaper.
Meanwhile we had to evict a (well-groomed) young man who had been sleeping in an empty storage locker in our condo building by underground parking area.
The face of the “homeless” comes in many ways. One wonders if he chose to run away or whatever his personal situation was.
5 Everyman // Nov 8, 2011 at 7:16 am
At the risk of sounding elitist, these debates should be held somewhere deep in the West Side. Anything held downtown is being held hostage by these Occupy protesters who are not interested in letting voters here what the candidates have to say. I suppose somewhere like Killarney would work too.
6 Fred // Nov 8, 2011 at 8:06 am
What a Gong Show.
The weaker your case, the more divorced form reality you are, the louder you scream to attempt to gain attention. The residents of Gregor’s Squat might be legends in their own minds but they are an isolated, failed, self marginalized rump of society.
7 Jason // Nov 8, 2011 at 9:32 am
“Money as debt. Suzanne probably hasn’t a clue. Gregor probably does and is being coy.”
Roger, you DO realize Gregor is part of the 1% right? You do realize that as far as money, status, background, etc. that he’s lived his life with a silver spoon in his mouth?
That might be why last night, at the end of the debate, ANTON walked out into the crowd and engaged with the people, while Gregor snuck out the back door.
8 Tiktaalik // Nov 8, 2011 at 10:27 am
11. Should more social housing be built in the Downtown Eastside?
Anton = no
Robertson = yes.
This clear differentiator makes simplifies the election choice.
If you agree with Robertson here then I suppose there is still some decisions about the makeup of the councillor team (ie. COPE?), but at least you know you’re not going with NPA.
9 Silly Season // Nov 8, 2011 at 10:53 am
I definitely agree with Suzanne on that point.
You are only adding to the pressure on services in the DTES if you keep building there. Let’s put social housing all around the city.
10 Paul T. // Nov 8, 2011 at 11:02 am
Totally agree with not adding more social housing on the DTES. We can’t continue to micromanage areas. STIRs, Spot Rezoning… Both examples of how NOT to do things. Council needs to provide the framework for what will work best for the city, let highly trained staff decide based on that framework.
11 Westender1 // Nov 8, 2011 at 11:11 am
I wish we could a better handle on the “language” of this debate. A quote from Mayor Robertson on the news this morning was that “we need more affordable housing, we need more middle-income housing.” What does that mean? The City has defined “affordable housing” as anything less expensive than ownership. A $1,400 a month rental unit under the STIR program is defined by the City as “affordable” and therefore this type of “affordable housing” would be the same as “middle-income housing.” Are we talking about “subsidized housing”? “Social housing”? Or are we talking about market housing?
PS: I’m shocked with the comments on inclusionary zoning – I think this is the only reasonable way forward. A portion of the density “lift” on large projects should be composed of rental and (real) affordable housing.
12 Bill Lee // Nov 8, 2011 at 11:20 am
Fabula said:.” (Tip 1: If you don’t think people have anything worthwhile to say, perhaps don’t come to events where they are speaking.)”
Which is why the people are staying away from most “all-candidates” meetings in droves.
The only good ideas, or at least novel ones, are from the independents. The others spout or are told the party line on a few topics.
Should we expect an increase in councillors wages in December?
Somehow some of the Occupy’s urban affairs should be enacted at the first meeting.
I still want annual elections to “throw the bums out” though that works both ways in our developer financed elections and the “best alderman/councillor a developer can buy.
13 Tiktaalik // Nov 8, 2011 at 11:20 am
With regard to outside the DTES both are maybe(?) on the same page.
12. Should affordable housing units be built outside the Downtown Eastside? Both said yes.
That’s “affordable” however. What about social?
14 MB // Nov 8, 2011 at 11:32 am
Robertson / Vision had already agreed to devote 14 city sites to housing the hard-to-house. As far as I am aware, two are underway, Main x 1st Ave + Fir x 7th Ave. I’m not sure if the 16th x Dunbar project is included in the 14.
These are not in the DTES. I’m not sure how many of the 14 are planned there, but there is a commitment to spread to responsibility to other neighbourhoods. Would that a large chunk of this responsibility be assumed by the other cities in the Metro who have always ridden on Vancouver’s coattails, and whose sons and daughters are in the squat and DTES.
It takes 24-30 months to finalize funding agreements with the province, design them, issue the tender, award the contract, get permits, and to complete construction. The nmext administration, whtever their makeup, will benefit from the opening of the projects that will come on stream during their term, bu that were enacted by Vision in the current term.
Instantaneous housing these are not, but they are a helluva lot more permanent than tarps and tents.
15 MB // Nov 8, 2011 at 11:50 am
Anton said that she’d like to see more SROs bought up and renovated. This is fine, but hardly original. And it does not actually create new housing stock. Instead it converts existing housing stock from private roach / bed bug-infested rooms managed by slumlords
to cleaner public rooms managed by non-profits.
It’s easy to suggest how another government (the province) should spend its resources, but less easy to actually deferentiate the opposition view when the current administration is actively using city resources (i.e. land) to create new housing.
16 jesse // Nov 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm
I too wonder what Robertson (and everyone else) means by “middle income” households. The variance is huge. The “1%” are complaining about “affordability” along with everyone else but they aren’t defining it the same.
What I’ve seen is those of higher incomes refusing to buy because they are unwilling to be part-time landlords and take on large amounts of debt that could explode in their faces if interest rates rise. Many, unfortunately, are making the choice to move elsewhere.
Robertson and Anton aren’t really dealing with the high land cost issue that is plaguing the city. Not every comparable city has these problems, it might be “thinking outside the box” a bit but it’s possible to have low land prices and a vibrant city; to think it’s not possible means they aren’t thinking hard enough. Maybe it’s worth asking some tough questions: what would it take to lower land prices? JMHO
17 Dan Cooper // Nov 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Thank you for this post, Frances. It is so helpful getting the information concisely. It seems there are a few clear differences in the candidates’ positions, e.g. regarding the roles of government and/or market solutions in addressing housing and homelessness concerns.
18 Westender1 // Nov 8, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Jesse, you asked: “Maybe it’s worth asking some tough questions: what would it take to lower land prices?”
Inclusionary zoning would be start. Upzoning condo site “A” tends to increase the value of the vacant site “B” across the street. Setting some obligations to be provided with at least some portion of the increase in density has the possibility of putting a damper on the increase in land costs.
19 MB // Nov 8, 2011 at 1:46 pm
@ Jesse 16: “Robertson and Anton aren’t really dealing with the high land cost issue that is plaguing the city. ”
How can they? Asking the mayor or the opposition candidate to lower land prices is like asking the prime minister to lower the international price of oil. Politicians are relatively helpless to control such things. It’s simple supply and demand for a finite commodity (land).
You put up the Great Wall of Vancouver to keep people out, the price goes up.
You have a great earthquake, the price goes down until rebuilding is done, then it’s right back up as long as there is a limit to the supply while there is a demand.
The best way to exert control is to enact methods to utilize increasingly expensive urban land more effciently. The price per acre won’t necessarily go down, but you devote less of it to wasted space, like the typically generous frontyard setbacks in single family detached zones.
One thousand 24 foot setbacks consumes 18 acres. If the setbacks were halved, then 9 acres would be freed up for more housing and such. The same principle applies to sideyards and backyards, and in such ideas as introducing six attached single-family row houses where three detached homes once sat.
Another method would be to level the mountains and shovel the rubble into the ocean to create “new” land. But you know how far that idea would go.
20 David // Nov 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm
As recently as the 1970s ordinary families with a single income could afford a house in Vancouver. Since then land values have skyrocketed. My first home, a condo, doubled in value in just 5 years. Project after project is built promising affordable home ownership, but the rich arrive and buy up all the units in the first hour. On the west side houses are purchased by overseas investors or locals who already own a half dozen homes. That situation is not going to change if we elect people like Vision and NPA whose first priority is rewarding the developers and rich land owners who fund their campaigns. Of course they aren’t going to support a speculation tax, but that’s exactly what is needed.
Proposal: every real estate purchaser pays a property purchase tax of 10%. A primary residence rebate equal to the tax can be claimed, but only if you’re a legal Canadian resident and only if you no longer own any property previously claimed as a primary residence. So if you buy a new home before selling your old one you’d have to wait until the old one sells before submitting your claim for the rebate. I picked 10% because it’s a nice round number that’s big enough to have an impact, but lower than the 12% HST applied to new construction.
21 jesse // Nov 8, 2011 at 1:58 pm
“How can they?”
Other jurisdictions have managed to do it, I don’t see why Vancouver can’t give it a go.
Looking at taxing land price appreciation in a clever way would be a good start (and this doesn’t mean higher taxes overall). I’m not stating land prices should be crazy low, rather I would like to ensure that if prices are not properly reflecting utility that we acknowledge there are externalities that make the city less livable and impede development.
22 MB // Nov 8, 2011 at 2:10 pm
I think M. Geller has commented previously on his opposition to the city taxing “land lift” (appreciation) on developments already. I’m not sure whether it’s clever and justified or not.
A great deal of development consists of small builders replacing older single family houses with newer (and often uglier or very bland), far more expensive houses without increasing land use efficacy.
Again, price is relative to the limits of supply and the level of demand.
23 Roger Kemble // Nov 8, 2011 at 2:18 pm
MB @ #32
Land lift A fancy term for inflation . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3gPQdWWpvk&feature=player_embedded
. . . it’s much bigger than Vancouver
24 A Dave // Nov 8, 2011 at 2:30 pm
“14. Would an inclusionary zoning policy, one where you require developers to build a certain percentage of affordable units into their projects like Richmond does, be workable in Vancouver? Both said No.”
Westender1 said, “Upzoning condo site “A” tends to increase the value of the vacant site “B” across the street. Setting some obligations to be provided with at least some portion of the increase in density has the possibility of putting a damper on the increase in land costs.”
This is precisely the issue facing the HAHR upzonings in the DTES, where Woodwards triggered massive speculation, and further condo towers in Chinatown are now sparking more speculative activity, as will the destruction of the viaducts.
Same goes for Cambie corridor upzoning, where $3.4 million now gets you a crappy post-war bungalow on a busy arterial.
And watch for more of the same in Mt. Pleasant, as the 20 storey STIR tower lands amidst a predominantly low-rise village centre.
So MB, aren’t these policy decisions, fleshed out by our Director of Planning to maximize speculation and developer profits, the antithesis to “affordability” and “sustainability”? Perhaps the City can’t effect much lower land costs, but can they not put the brakes on policies that clearly help to inflate them?
Meanwhile, Frances opined in an earlier comment, “Both [types of donations, corporate and union,] need to be banned. NOT because I think they influence council decisions.”
Yet I wonder, if you put this question about inclusionary zoning to candidates who aren’t funded by developers, like NSV, COPE, or an independent like Garrossino, would you get a different answer?
I suspect you would get a different answer, and I suspect this policy difference would be precisely because of who the biggest donors are to the two main parties.
The reality is, both party’s policies have been contributing to the problem over the last 6 years. I don’t expect that to change until there is campaign finance reform.
25 MB // Nov 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm
@ David 20, the risk you set up with the rebate for Canadians only (who will also escape capital gains tax) will likely not slow the demand for Metro Vancouver housing / land by Canadians, and and therein not lower or stabilize prices significantly. Immigration from other provinces is very, very significant.
It also flies in the face of foreign ownship of any kind, which happens to include a large part of our economy. If you bar / tax foreign ownership of housing exorbitantly, then why not businesses to?
Your idea may also create a new industry: Canadian surrogate landowners who are paid a fee (% of property value?, % fee increase per year?) to buy and hold property for “foreigners” until their sponsors attain citizenship.
Thousands of marriages are arranged each year to bring a “spouse” into any western nation, or to smooth out a refugee’s or immigrant’s road to citizenship. The same could apply to home ownership under David’s Law.
26 ThinkOutsideABox // Nov 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm
A Dave 24,
+1
27 mezzanine // Nov 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm
@ MB
+1
MB is right, watch for unintended consequences.
IIRC, the property transfer tax was introduced by vander zalm to reduce speculation on real estate. I don’t think it worked.
28 MB // Nov 8, 2011 at 2:58 pm
@ A Dave 24: “So MB, aren’t these policy decisions, fleshed out by our Director of Planning to maximize speculation and developer profits, the antithesis to “affordability” and “sustainability”? ”
I don’t believe Mr. Toderian set out purposely to “maximize speculation and developer profits” because his bosses are answerable not to developers, but to the voters who live in the neighbourhoods directly affected by the developments you cite.
You may have noticed that the neighbourhoods have not been silent. In fact NSV arose from this issue and from one of the largest spate of spot rezonings we’ve seen since the Expo lands became Concord Pacific.
And FYI, I’m seriously considering saving one of my council selections for NSV candidate Ms. Murphy who has one of the more intelligent and neutral voices on this very issue.
That’s not to say no one isn’t influenced by campaign donations, and I agree that there’s always room for election financing reform. But paving the way to the highest bidder in bald disregard to the electorate and neighbourhoods has to be proven on a case-by-case basis, and lawsuits prepared, and certainly not be attributable to plain old demand in transit corridors and such.
BTW, a standard single family lot west of Main can be had for $2.3 million LESS than the $3.4 million super extra large lots on Cambie next to a planned rapid transit station you cited. And there’s nothing wrong with 60s bungalow architecture.
29 Glissando Remmy // Nov 8, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Roger #23,
Excellent link to the Crookworld!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3gPQdWWpvk&feature=player_embedded
Needs more viewings …
I wonder, while everyone in Vancouver is asleep, or is concentrated on the Wall Street, how are Renewal & Tides you know… the other Rokefella’ Brothers conducting their financial transactions from down their basements?
Just curious…
30 jesse // Nov 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm
“Again, price is relative to the limits of supply and the level of demand”
You could have said that 10 years ago and looked in awe as prices more than doubled (in many cases more). If Vancouver manages to fall victim to an asset price crash it’s going to look rather odd that the dictates of “supply and demand” contributed to the greater good.
Simple taxation of land above its utility ensures that, at least, capital transfers during speculative bubbles are expropriated and shared with existing residents. The goal is to quench asset price bubbles and again many jurisdictions have been successful at doing this.
Chipping around at the outside with zoning and such misses the root problem and I disagree it cannot be solved; whether or not the populace would accept this is another question. Phrasing it as a tax on land speculation (or whatever) and reducing property taxes of residents/businesses in lieu is one thought that actually might be “popular”.
If taxes on land appreciation were severe enough and graduated based on known asset bubble signals, the actual tax collection need never come into play because the market would regulate to avoid the taxes.
Just saying, if one thinks there’s a speculative housing bubble right now, there are methods that can ensure another one would be unlikely to form again: regulate and tax land use like the Canadian government soon will its banks in the coming years. (This does not mean stifling development; quite the opposite — lower land prices I would think should be good for developers.)
31 IanS // Nov 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm
@Jess #21:
“Simple taxation of land above its utility ensures that, at least, capital transfers during speculative bubbles are expropriated and shared with existing residents.”
Not sure what you mean by “utility” here. Are you using that term to distinguish between the proper (for lack of a better word) value and the increased value due to improper (again, for lack of a better word) speculation? If so, how do we know what the “utility” is?
32 jesse // Nov 8, 2011 at 4:44 pm
” If so, how do we know what the “utility” is?”
@IanS #31, I would argue that utility based on rental yields has been a good gauge of “price bottoms” in past bubbles, and is what post-bubble areas of the US are now experiencing. Healthy yields comparable to other “utilities” (like say water company or gas pipeline) would be fair, and that puts housing at about 7% net based on large-scale REITs and other cash-only investors operating Stateside and other parts of Canada.
Yes, people will be willing and able to pay more for land for personal reasons but it may actually shock people that there are many parts of the world where residents don’t have to pay a premium, much like I pay a premium to rent a car instead of own one. In addition there are some reasons for accepting lower yields in a growing city but for condos there isn’t much room to increase density and it’s predominately future earnings from rents with a reasonably well-known risk premium that justifies valuations.
Right now I find the discourse in the civic election debate unable to fathom what for me (and a few other world-famous economists FWIW) is obvious, that earnings on Vancouver residential real estate stink right now but pretty much every candidate has taken the tack that we need to “put up” with high prices. Rather I think the other way is to force prices lower and keep them there with proper controls. The market will likely take care of this on its own but the next bubble, if it happens, will cause future economic malaise for the city because it mis-allocates capital and household formation.
33 Joseph Jones // Nov 9, 2011 at 12:21 am
Did anybody else find disingenuity oozing from Gregor Robertson’s “concern” about his 4 silverspoon offspring being able to “afford” to live in Vancouver?
34 Roger Kemble // Nov 9, 2011 at 5:18 am
Jason @ # 7 “. . . he’s lived his life with a silver spoon in his mouth?” Well, so did I but that doesn’t mean I am oblivious to the damage fractional reserve banking is doing.
Take, for instance, inflation going on, on the Canada Line. A pack of speculators parlay the numbers beyond sensibilities even for themselves. One of them cannot count, dives in out of his depth.
The lucky builder bought high, too high: hence, Gerry building: i.e leaky condo, West coast special! Still happening, albeit soco voco: we bore easily.
In the mean time attractive, sleek well-groomed agents troll the China Coast for suckers: they’re there by the millions.
They buy in and hold for better days. Better days never come. Vancouver rents in its own back yard and paradise turns into Dante’s you know wot!
A boxer rebellion in world-class paradise by the mountains and the sea (Wot was that you said Gord?). Who wudda thought?
And, why the hell not? We did it to them a century ago!
Glissie @ #29 “Excellent link to the Crookworld! It isn’t as though the money churners don’t know Glissie. The shysters are so pissed off with them selves they just can’t see it.
Self-delusion to the tune of . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyFyAqLtHq8
35 MB // Nov 9, 2011 at 9:31 am
So, Jesse, thousands of people like me who bought in the late 90s and experienced a tripling in value in Vancouver (doubling in many desireable suburbs) beyond their control would be penalized by an onerous land speculation tax?
Of course, enacting said tax in today’s market assumes the average value will always go up despite world financial influences, or that the increase in land value resulting from the perfectly logical application of more density on transit lines is not a natural result.
This policy also assumes that there is some kind of natural affordable base land value underlying everything below which a speculation tax would not apply. I’d be very interested to hear how such a value is calculated, and upon what assumptions it’s built on.
In many ways, the Leave it to Beaver 1950s suburban dream was never affordable in the long run, and given the economic and environmental challenges we face here in the next century, that dream has to change into compact communities and all the sustainable housuing choices that pertains too.
36 IanS // Nov 9, 2011 at 9:53 am
@jesse #32,
You write:
“I would argue that utility based on rental yields has been a good gauge of “price bottoms” in past bubbles, and is what post-bubble areas of the US are now experiencing. Healthy yields comparable to other “utilities” (like say water company or gas pipeline) would be fair, and that puts housing at about 7% net based on large-scale REITs and other cash-only investors operating Stateside and other parts of Canada.”
So, as I understand you, you’re proposing that a group of government bureaucrats sit down, determine what they consider to be a fair or reasonable rate of return for my property and then effectively expropriate any appreciation in excess of that “reasonable rate of return” through a punitive tax?
Gosh.. that sounds tempting.
But seriously, I suppose if the authority were also to guarantee that rate of return, there might be something in it. Hence, if the market was to drop, the authority would be obliged to make payment to me of the difference between the actual sale price and the “reasonable rate of return”. However, I don’t see much attraction in the authority taking away my potential upside without also taking away the potential downside.
Also, it’s not difficult to see some potential problems with your proposal.
What if a homeowner increases the value of their property through upgrades or improvements? Would they still be limited to the 7% “approved” return? Perhaps that owner could apply to the “Improvement Committee”, with invoices etc and get approval for an increased rate of return? Of course, the owner would, I imagine, have to establish that the improvement costs were properly incurred. I suppose the “Costs Approval Committee” could deal with that.
I imagine similar issues would arise where an entirely new structure was built on the property. Perhaps a subset of the “Improvement Committee”, the “New Structure Improvement Committee” could review and assess the value of the new structure and incorporate that into the approved rate of return? Again, the “Costs Approval Committee” would be key in such a process, although it would be a more complex matter to assess the reasonableness of costs for a new structure. Perhaps we would need a new set of subcommittees, the “New Structure Costs Committee”, made up of the “New Structure Materials Costs Committee” and the “New Structure Labour Costs Committee”, to review the situation. Alternatively, it might be more expedient to mandate material and labour costs entirely through regulation, to ensure that the cost of such new structures did not render then unaffordable.
Viewed in this light, your proposal will not only limit land appreciation, but it will also create hundred if not thousands of new jobs.
Still, notwithstanding the potential benefits of such an approach, I think I’ll pass.
37 MB // Nov 9, 2011 at 11:32 am
@ Ian S 36, I think you may have forgotten the Costs Approval and New Structures Speculative Tax Appeal Board.
Gotta be a couple hundred more jobs there.
38 IanS // Nov 9, 2011 at 12:41 pm
@MG #37,
Good point. Of course you have the appeals process and, ultimately, the applications for judicial review and appeals to Court.
All kinds of new jobs. Plus (and this is a bonus) a lot of new work for lawyers. It’s a win win.
39 jesse // Nov 9, 2011 at 10:09 pm
@IanS
Never mind Germany does something similar with little speculative excesses as a result. Listen, we regulate water, electricity, yet somehow housing — another utility — is somehow at the free reign of the markets. And — lo — we have a massive speculative bubble on our hands. People are taking on exorbitant high convexity long duration loans where a reversion to higher rates would destroy equity.
That you choose sarcasm instead of critically looking at what other areas of the world have done to ameliorate speculative bubbles is saddening.
The NPA’s stance that the “free market” can decide is bizarre given how their clocks were cleaned by said free market during their hedge fund dress-up party. Now they know better, of course.
40 jesse // Nov 9, 2011 at 10:26 pm
“Hence, if the market was to drop, the authority would be obliged to make payment to me of the difference between the actual sale price and the “reasonable rate of return””
The City exerts taxes on a well-known long-term rate of return on housing. It’s akin to so-called countercyclical measures designed to tax obvious inefficiency.
“What if a homeowner increases the value of their property through upgrades or improvements?”
What part of “tax on land prices” don’t you understand?
MB: “I’d be very interested to hear how such a value is calculated, and upon what assumptions it’s built on.”
The best gauge we have is returns on condos whose long-term land utility is reasonably well-known. There will always be speculation in lower-density properties, higher-density ones cannot subdivide. We have good measures on what the long-run return is for these types of housing based on rental rate growth and incomes.
I never stated preventing bubbles was easy (or possible), but I refuse to accept that Vancouver’s fate is boom-bust ad infinitum: it is a net detriment to making the city’s economy grow in a sustainable and more balanced way if every 10-15 years speculation starts interfering with other businesses trying to grow and attract employees from around the world.
Maybe nothing can be done about it, I just think we need to look to other areas for the full gamut of options, so at least we can debate them. Treating taxation as socialism or anti-free-market is unfair to proper critical debate, given precedence elsewhere (even in parts of the US).
41 IanS // Nov 10, 2011 at 6:08 am
@jesse #40,
Firstly, apologies for the sarcasm. I was attempting to use humour to point out what I see as a potential drawback of your proposal. Always an iffy idea in online discussions.
“Maybe nothing can be done about it”
I have no doubt that something can be done about it. I’m just not sure something should be done about it and, in my opinion, the cure you proposed was worse than the disease.
Leave a Comment