Canada to ban foreigners from buying homes • Hacker News Board

Re: Canada to ban foreigners from buying homes

#611

Post by BurningFrog » Fri, Apr 08, 2022, 1:27 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #581

BurningFrog wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the people who moved to the housing projects were typically sleeping on the streets. I think it was more a case of upgrading to modern sanitation standards etc. That said, I have no real detailed knowledge, and would be happy to learn how wrong I am about this :)

Bottom living standards were a lot lower back then: people could live in shacks without plumbing, flop houses were plentiful. These days none of that is legally allowed, so people would have fallen into that housing 50-80 years ago are homeless today. That being said, poverty reductions between then and now are real, it’s only that our standards keep getting higher (as they should).

I would 100% bring back flop houses. They're much better than sleeping in the street.

The insanity of "we can't let you have a bad X, so you get no X!" is one of my least favorite things in this era...

Re: Canada to ban foreigners from buying homes

#612

Post by ashtonkem » Fri, Apr 08, 2022, 1:28 AM UTC

Melatonic wrote: post #493

ashtonkem wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are all the major cities in the western world seemingly hitting this limit at the same time, even though they all have different populations? I can’t speak for Canada, but in America the answer is always cars. Car based transit is wildly land inefficient, and the main reason why all car based cities hit their limit at the same time. In particular there are two huge shortcomings with cars in urban design: 1. Par…

Isn't this more a limit of dense (taller) housing? If we had much more housing in tall buildings near where people worked then they either would not need a car or would at least not need to drive their car to work. You still of course need to provide parking but tall parking garages can solve that as well (or underground). Seems like tons of cars are the symptom of the problem here not the cause

It’s symbiotic. We can’t build denser housing because we need space for car storage and roads. We can’t encourage people to reduce/eliminate their car usage because our infrastructure makes that miserable.

Re: Canada to ban foreigners from buying homes

#613

Post by nradov » Fri, Apr 08, 2022, 1:28 AM UTC

TuringNYC wrote: post #572

crooked-v wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the market efficiency in the world won't stop the continual increase in prices from bad zoning and missing middle housing.

>> All the market efficiency in the world won't stop the continual increase in prices from bad zoning and missing middle housing. I disagree. Depending on the jurisdiction (in the US), part of the issue is the 10% net loss you end up with. 5-6% on the agent fee(s), another 1% on "mansion tax", in NYS/NYC there is a 1% and 1% transfer tax and 1/2% mortgage tax. Different jurisdictions are less (or more). Throw in more…

No one is required to pay a 5-6% commission. Use a discount real estate broker. You won't get much in the way of marketing or staging service, but in a hot market that hardly matters.

Re: Canada to ban foreigners from buying homes

#614

Post by ashtonkem » Fri, Apr 08, 2022, 1:32 AM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #553

ashtonkem wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s amazing how many downvotes pointing this out gets. People have quite the kneejerk reaction when the downsides of car transit are pointed out to them.

It’s a lazy slogan that gets us nowhere. I live in NYC and we’ve built three brand new subway stations in the last fifty years. It’s not just a matter of people’s preferences for cars, it’s not possible to build a non car city anymore due to pathologies that have nothing to do with “car culture”. The number one issue is that we’ve allowed too many people and interest groups to effectively bring any major project to a…

> It’s a lazy slogan that gets us nowhere.

“Cars are land inefficient” isn’t a slogan, it’s literal fact.

> I live in NYC and we’ve built three brand new subway stations in the last fifty years

Ah, the stereotype of New Yorkers not paying attention to other cities strikes again! Yes, New York has its own problems, but for the vast majority of other cities GP’s comment is true. New York is one of the very few exception cases in the US.

> The number one issue is that we’ve allowed too many people and interest groups to effectively bring any major project to a halt. This is not some inherent feature of democracy either, you can have a democracy where the majority gets to do things. We just don’t have one of those in the US, or Canada it sounds like.

What if I told you that for a lot of transit activists, undemocratic processes that prioritize the needs of drivers over the rest of society is car culture?

Re: Canada to ban foreigners from buying homes

#615

Post by mrtri » Fri, Apr 08, 2022, 1:33 AM UTC

No post body was provided.

Re: Canada to ban foreigners from buying homes

#616

Post by ertian » Fri, Apr 08, 2022, 1:35 AM UTC

arthurofbabylon wrote: post #530

davidw wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> massive investments made by hedge funds, private capital, REITs I can't recommend this article enough on that subject: https://www.vox.com/22524829/wall-street-housing-market-blac... "The role of institutional investors is still being studied, but the popularity of the narrative strikes at something dangerous: People want a convenient boogeyman and when they get it, they often ignore the structural problems that ar…

Ironically, that quoted excerpt inserted its own "convenient boogeyman" of housing undersupply caused by local opposition. Also, institutional investors do have a reputation for inciting bubbles and that possibility absolutely needs to be carefully scrutinized, particularly for something as essential and socially compounding as housing.

Not everything is just a "convenient boogeyman": some things actually do contribute more to housing costs.

If you drive through any major American (or Canadian) city outside of the core downtown area...it's pretty clear _something_ is preventing large developments. If you drive through the Bay Area, or stand on a 4-storey "high-rise" and look out over miles upon miles of aging bungalows, and consider the value of the land they're sitting on, it's really a bit shocking.

And if you look into adding a suite for rental to your house, it'll be pretty clear what the barrier is to new development. It basically doesn't matter where you are in the country.

Local zoning really does play a huge role in housing cost in North America.

Re: Canada to ban foreigners from buying homes

#617

Post by vkou » Fri, Apr 08, 2022, 1:40 AM UTC

3qz wrote: post #555

vkou wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1%/year is not a crazy-high rate, considering that Canadian fertility is below replacement. If the country can't figure out how to deal with a population growth of ~1%/year, the problem is not the growth, the problem is somewhere else.

It’s not population growth, just immigrantion. 1.3 million in the next 3 years and 430k this year when the population is not even 40 million. That’s not even including the hundreds of thousands of foreign students and temporary workers. There are several cities where the majority of residents were not born in Canada so it obviously has an enormous strain on everything.

1. So, it's a mere 1% of the population/year, in a country that has below-replacement fertility.

2. Of course you shouldn't count foreign students or temporary workers, they get counted if they choose to stay. If you were counting them, as well as immigrants, you'd be double-counting the same people.

3. I didn't realize that the singular suburb of Vancouver called Richmond, BC (Population: 216,000) can be referred to as 'several cities'.

4. Why does a young[1], educated[2] person moving into the country in the prime of their life 'put an enormous strain on everything'? Would you care to elaborate? To me, it seems like a gift of all the costs of early-life childcare, plus the cost of a K-12-post-secondary education from their country of origin.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/443305/international-mig...

[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/555224/number-of-landed-...

Re: Canada to ban foreigners from buying homes

#618

Post by digianarchist » Fri, Apr 08, 2022, 1:44 AM UTC

nacho2sweet wrote: post #70

It is full loopholes like people with 10 year visas, work visas, student visas are exempt. We have University students with $31million Vancouver mansions in their name. Our tax system is screwy where we have very low property taxes and high employment tax. The whole west side of Vancouver claims poverty level incomes on average (like qualifies for government tax rebates bad), yet it is the most expensive land in the…

>very low property taxes and high employment tax

The US is the exception to that rule. Canada mirrors most of Europe.

Re: Canada to ban foreigners from buying homes

#619

Post by CountSessine » Fri, Apr 08, 2022, 1:44 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #596

CountSessine wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That other problems exist is not a valid reason to prevent fixing something if that fix actually helps in some way That scarcity exists is the whole reason we're focusing on foreign buyers in 2022. And blind-bidding in 2021. And investors in 2019. And money-laundering in 2018. And Chinese money in 2017. All of these things should be addressed, but every one of them has provided political cover for the real reason tha…

> None of these things will matter one whit to housing affordability. > "Helps in some way" is alright except that "helps in some way" has been sold for the last 6 years, politically, as, "this is the reason you can't buy a home! Surely it has nothing to do with NIMBYism and our suburbs! Please don't ask me, as your elected representative, to take on suburban voters and start talking about housing equity as it relate…

That isn't what the commenter you originally replied to was stating, nor was it my position. While your argument may have merit, it's a non-sequitur when used as a rebuttal to either that commenter or myself.

The poster is literally responding to a news article about housing affordability with the declaration about blind-bidding, "This is such a huge deal".

It really isn't. This is the difference between English vs Dutch auctions and the relative merits in an open and sane market can be debated. Sealed auctions are not a market failure. Sealed auctions do not necessarily lead to higher bids. Sealed auctions do not necessarily lead to market asymmetries. The effects of these two auction choices is largely irrelevant as long as we have the demand curve pushed out to crazy-town.

Do research on the property! One of the big advantages of Dutch auctions is that bidders don't get information on how you value something! Except of course that everything is valuable because of scarcity so yeah actually I guess sealed bids won't really provide a lot of value for the buyer.

Adjust your bid as others bid! English auctions allow you to make lots of adjustments based on what other bidders think something is worth! Oh, except of course everything is in demand so everyone just keeps bidding and the frenzy makes other participants unpredictable... so yeah, actually I guess open bids won't really provide a lot of value for the buyer.

I get it, you have a point you want to make. There are more constructive ways to do so than to misconstrue the arguments of the people you are replying to.

I'm really just tired of the bs.

Re: Canada to ban foreigners from buying homes

#620

Post by NikolaNovak » Fri, Apr 08, 2022, 1:46 AM UTC

AzzieElbab wrote: post #222

FpUser wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And ruin lives for everyone who did not manage to buy house when it was affordable. Fuck that. Just in case, I do own the house.

Do you have a mortgage too? Would you be happy owing the bank more than your property is worth?

Not the op but I have a mortgage; Bought in Toronto in 2018 so fairly high. It is possible to have two adjoining thoughts:

1. It'd suck for me if house prices went substantially down.

2. It is nevertheless absolutely positively the right same thing for society.

The assumption that house is mandatory, can be your main retirement or even only plan, and prices can only go up is crazy and unsustainable. Pain is coming and I see no reason to keep making it worse while enriching people in undeserving ways.

This was my opinion for 20 years,from poor university student to renter to condo owner to house "owner". But I come from Europe so my brain can grok the notion of "you don't have to have a massive house. You just don't". This may sound insulting but my wife is love of my life, born Canadian, and cannot comprehend not having a house, having a family without a house, or that prices can go down. It's like seeing ultraviolet - no matter how much she squint she's not physically equipped :-)