Frances Bula header image 2
← →

The temperature goes up in Vancouver housing wars, with stories on data and racism

July 19th, 2016 · 19 Comments

Just when you think things can’t get any more virulent in Vancouver’s debates over real estate, they do.

As far as I can tell, the heat went up starting with the province’s decision two weeks ago to release three weeks worth of data on sales, which showed that about five per cent of Vancouver real estate is bought by foreign investors, according to data now being collected by the province.

(The data indicated some distinct hotspots in Richmond and Burnaby, where the rates were 14 per cent and almost 11 per cent respectively.)

Then Pete McMartin at the Vancouver Sun weighed in after that, making a forceful case that now it was pretty clear that racism was really underlying the conversation. His argument, if I can summarize, was that, since it’s clear that foreign-investment levels aren’t that high, what’s really going on is that Vancouverites just don’t like wealthy Chinese people of any description. Only he was a lot more vividly than that.

That, of course, sparked a huge reaction, with Justin Fung (Housing Action for Local Taxpayers) and Fenella Sung (Friends of Hong Kong) becoming the go-to spokespeople on local media making a counter-argument, that the current debates over housing do not have a race-related element and, if I’m capturing this correctly, they’re really just focused on the reality of the Chinese economy.

Then the Georgia Straight weighed in with several articles, including Travis Lupick’s two-part series on Vancouver’s history when it comes to race and real estate, here and here. That contrasted, at one point, the way stories and studies about the overwhelming influence of foreign money appear to get much more public traction that stories and studies that assign it a role as just one factor among many.

He also wrote an earlier news story quoting Vancouver human-rights activist Victor Wong, which really made people set their hair on fire, as well as accusing the Georgia Straight of now being in bed with developers.

Then Doug Todd from the Vancouver Sun added his essay arguing that the current conversations are really about policy, not race.

Throughout it all, each side made accusations that the other side is just trying to shut down any conversation. There were also suggestions that white people don’t have any authority to talk about racism (although it seemed to me that suggestion was only made about those raising issues about racism, not if they were saying there is no racism). And there were those who suggested that you had to pick your side — you could talk about racism or you could talk about affordability.

As for me — well, I’d like to see, as I’ve said elsewhere, a conversation where we can talk about what is and isn’t problematic about coverage where race is involved, without either side screaming “you’re trying to shut down the conversation.”

I know my journalism students struggle with race issues and have for years. I had a whole class once a decade ago that balked at writing a story from a school-board report that suggested Chinese ESL students were performing differently on certain tests from other ESL students. For them, the idea of referring to anything with a generalization about race was abhorrent — even if it was a rigorously conducted school study. It took a lot of talking from me to get them off that position.

I’ll have more to say about this at a later date.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • penguinstorm

    Arguing that it’s “about” any one thing is pretty silly. it’s a complicated and multi-faceted issue.

    Do I think there’s an element of race as a factor? Yes. It’s not the driver of the conversation, but it exists.

    Is foreign wealth the cause? No. It’s a contributing factor.

    Is lack of supply the issue? No. Simply increasing supply won’t solve the problem, but we *know* that *not* increasing the supply will exacerbate the problem.

    Vacant homes? Nope, but certainly having homes sit vacant contributes by reducing supply.

    There’s a contingent of people who seem to like to latch onto these (and other) reasons and claim that “the problem is cause by this!” when it suits them. They often seem to ignore data or randomly cite their own statistic. This puts me in mind of an old saying about people who use data as a drunk uses a lamppost–not for illumination, but for support.

    I choose to ignore those people, because this can be an interesting issue…but not when being discussed on a ridiculously simplified level. Then it’s just a waste of time.

  • Charlie Smith

    Hi Frances,
    Thanks for writing this.

    Here’s something that wasn’t mentioned in your article: the Georgia Straight posted Justin Fung’s commentary on the website, which offered a different perspective.

    The Georgia Straight has also posted lengthy articles by Martyn Brown about the housing debate, which are in accordance with the views of those most concerned about foreign investment.

    The Georgia Straight has provided readers with a broad perspective. The reality is that a discussion about racism opens the conversation up into new areas and is not about shutting down a discussion on foreign investment.

    Charlie Smith
    Georgia Straight

  • Bo Xilai

    I just loved it when Bob Rennie and Gregor Robertson accused Chinese-Canadian Andy Yan of racism because he dared publish research linking foreign ownership and high property values in Vancouver. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-foreign-ownership-study-1.3301061

  • A Taxpayer

    Pete McMartin’s column was poor journalism as it was based on an incorrect assumption that the government statistics proved anything (you can not generalize from 2 weeks of data) and flawed logic that since it wasn’t foreign investment moving the market, people that attribute it to that must have racist motivations. (prices are skyrocketing, there is clearly foreign investment and sufficient investment would move the market so their was a reasonable basis to attribute the escalating prices to foreign investors who happen to be Chinese. This is not racism.).

    In any event, it is a fact that there is significant Chinese investment in real estate around the world and not just in Vancouver. They have to do something with the billions of dollars we sent them to buy cheap consumer goods and there are not a whole lot of attractive investments. (All of the Swiss Gov’t bonds are in negative yield territory right out to 50 year maturities).

    You do raise a good point about racism. People are very quick to play the race card because it does shut down debate or at least deflects the discussion away from the issue at hand. No one, and in particular public figures, want to be labelled a racist. This is very dangerous because if we shut down legitimate discussion on real issues like the consequences of multiculturalism, then it leaves the field open to the more extreme views to address peoples concerns. You are seeing this result in Europe because people’s legitimate concerns are being ignored by the current governments.

  • Brilliant

    Sure Charlie, and what percentage of the Straight’s revenue comes from developers purchasing big ads?

  • peakie

    Porn back pages are as much.
    If you pick up the physical paper, you will find it thinner these days. Thank heavens they staple it so the loos pages don’t scatter all across the street from the magazine dump.
    Sun gets more revenue, but I suspect that the land speculators are using non-English-language media more.

    Pick up a Sing Tao, a Ming Pao or one of the free weeklies at T&T so see huge amounts of (rather cheap per page) adverts.

  • Chris Keam

    That kind of drive-by snark is unhelpful at best. When done from behind a screen name it denies the person accused of self-interest (and the rest of us) the ability to look at who is pointing the finger and decide for ourselves what conflicts or motivations (if any) might be behind those remarks. Disappointing Brilliant. The probable outcome is that more and more people choose anonymity, and the transparency needed for productive dialogue is lost.

  • Brilliant

    Same old Chris, on a quixotic crusade against internet anonymity. You will notice there was no answer from The Straight…

  • A Taxpayer

    He asked a relevant question and the motivation for asking it is irrelevant. Your anonymity hobby horse is just a deflection from the issue which is standard Chris Keam. Or do you have some motivation for currying favour with The Straight?

  • Chris Keam

    I have no beef with anonymity. Said it a million times. Central tenet of democratic societies — you get to know who your accuser is.

    You and Taxpayer on the same page. Let that sink in.

  • Chris Keam

    Sure, it’s a relevant question. But shouldn’t Charlie get to know who’s asking?

  • Chris Keam

    “You will notice there was no answer from The Straight”

    What possible good could come to the publication in divulging its revenue breakdown to an anonymous Internet troll? Show me your tax return if you think where the money comes from is crucial to assessing a viewpoint. You want to know the Straight’s income sources to decide if it’s a legit perspective they bring, but hide behind a name so no one can even guess who you are. Can’t believe this annoying double standard escapes intelligent people. Maybe it doesn’t.

  • Chris Keam

    “Or do you have some motivation for currying favour with The Straight?”

    Yeah, I’m hoping to corner the market on ‘bear’ torso pix modelling for the back pages. Grrr big boy, got some honey for me?

  • A Taxpayer

    No, but he does have the right to choose whether or not to answer although he is unlikely to disclose his revenue source regardless of who is asking so your point about anonymity is strictly a red herring. In fact, I took Brilliant’s question as rhetorical and is a reminder that there is a lot of money flowing from the real estate market – provincial and municipal governments, developers, construction workers, real estate agents, home owners cashing in and even universities (the Economist reported that families of international students are significant real estate investors where their children are studying). On the other side of the equation are those trying to get into the market. Few people want to see the market collapse and become “affordable” which is why the City and Province want to be seen doing something (tax on empty homes, new regulatory regime for realtors) without actually impacting the market.

    So we had two significant topics for discussion – cost of housing and the use of the race card to stifle debate – yet you choose to focus on anonymity on the internet. But I guess if that is all you’ve got……

  • Chris Keam

    “So we had two significant topics for discussion”

    Nothing is stopping you from continuing that discussion instead of boo-hooing that I don’t want to talk about what you want to talk about. But you’re not. That’s not my doing. Nonetheless, good to know that your off-topic forays into accusations of climate change conspiracies will no longer be side-tracking other topics on this blog. So there’s that.

  • A Taxpayer

    I realize you are prone to staking out bizarre positions but suggesting that a comment on a blog is putting us on the slippery slope to McCarthyism is extreme even for you. Can a tin foil hat be far behind?

  • Chris Keam

    Of course I haven’t suggested that a ‘comment on a blog’ is the slippery slope to McCarthyism. I’d make a case that you have a weak argument, but frankly, you’ve put forth no argument whatsoever that is a cogent, logical defense of the ability to make accusations and question motives of identified individuals from behind a nom de plume.

    “The other common way of arguing against anonymity was based in laissez-faire ideology, the notion that periodical publishing was a literal marketplace of ideas. The problem with anonymity in this formulation was that it hid relevant information, preventing a fair transaction.”

    Thinking people have been worrying about the impact of identity/anonymity in writing for quite some time. That is good and necessary. Certainly not a bizarre position, unless you have a problem with accountability. McCarthyism showed us exactly what happens when accusation from behind anonymity is considered OK as a general rule. Coupled with the impact of mass media, it was a large, thankfully temporary blight on U.S. freedom of speech and thought.

    But if it were the case that anonymity and identity are irrelevant, then why aren’t you simply arguing against the merits of this particular position. The reality is that you feel it’s appropriate to bring up my identity, past comments, and your perceived view of me as an ‘extremist’ LOL. In fact, many of your comments rely on attacking identity rather than putting forward a strong argument for/against a position.

    So, you are quite keen to have identity play a role in public debate. Just not so keen to have your identity in the game.

    This isn’t about protecting whistleblowers or whatever today’s argument for anonymity might be. Have you or anyone on this blog dropped some revelatory material on us that put them at any risk? Not to my knowledge.

    http://daily.jstor.org/anonymity-public-debate-1800s/

  • A Taxpayer

    Your decision to post a comment under your name is your decision alone and I would make the same comments about the positions you take even if you were to do so anonymously. A bad idea (like Open Borders – the recent European events have revealed just how bad an idea it is) is a bad idea and it makes no difference whether you make it as Chris Keam or John Doe. I would actually prefer if you did so anonymously so we did not have to endure this frequent whining from you about anonymity instead of actually contributing to the discussion about the topic at hand.

  • Chris Keam

    Well, no surprise you missed the point of my post. Logic is not your strong suit is it? Nonetheless, you keep ‘whining’ that I’m off-topic, yet you continue to respond. The bottom line is that you question motivation from behind anonymity. If you can’t spot the hypocrisy, not my problem.

    http://openborders.info/terrorism/