111–120 of 619 posts
One good rule of thumb is that whenever people are blaming foreigners for their problems, they're wrong. Investment in housing and price increases are related. But it's the price increases that cause the investments, not the other way around.
The problem is not rich people overseas, its rent seeking rich people everywhere. 1 person - 1 property. Commercial property should be state owned with perpetual leases.
39M Canadians[2]
Looks like there isn’t enough property to go round.
Maybe the problem is that people want to live in places where they get paid, and not share with parents/roommates and they’re competing to occupy dwellings where there aren’t enough? But what do I know? I just wrote down some numbers that aren’t equal.
[1] https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98...
Canada is also bringing in one million immigrants a year to feed the exploitative low paying job market and to try to stave off recession. These immigrants tend to gravitate in either Toronto or Vancouver. Meanwhile corporate and rich investors are snapping up any property they can get their hands one. In Ontario the Premiere is reclassifying conservation land owner by his buddies to allow them to build developments.…
It’s nowhere near 1 million per year. The record from 2021 was 405,000 and the plan for the next 3 years is https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/ne...
If you think this law will be easy to sidestep, please read this post first: https://old.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/zz92li/prohi... It appears that the law is well-designed to avoid such abuses and loopholes. Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1494/
If you think this law will be easy to sidestep, please read this post first: https://old.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/zz92li/prohi... It appears that the law is well-designed to avoid such abuses and loopholes. Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1494/
> "The ban doesn't apply to properties with 4 units or more" - good. If the goal is to allow single family homes and duplexes, condos, etc. to drop in price, it's providing aid in the right place. The goal wasn't to make life easier for people buying investment properties. This seems like a massive gap though, and the counterargument doesn't make sense. Surely high-density housing is (should be) cheaper than the alte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? Foreigners can't buy therefore it will decrease the number of people trying to buy there
But it won't decrease the number of people competing to live in the units, which is what determines the value of the housing units.
many of the properties are left empty for extended periods of time because the owners value liquidity over rental income, and having a renter makes it more difficult to sell quickly when market conditions change (or if you simply want to shift your portfolio).
One good rule of thumb is that whenever people are blaming foreigners for their problems, they're wrong. Investment in housing and price increases are related. But it's the price increases that cause the investments, not the other way around.
One good rule of thumb is that whenever people are blaming foreigners for their problems, they're wrong. Investment in housing and price increases are related. But it's the price increases that cause the investments, not the other way around.
Another good rule of thumb is to not dismiss issues just because they don't fit an over-generalized idea of how all situations must work.
The housing situation in Canada is weird. I visited a friend who lived in a high rise and barely saw anyone else come and go from the building the entire week I was there. From the windows we could see into other nearby high rises, most of which were empty. Empty not because they were for sale, but because they had been purchased as investment vehicles by foreign investors who had no intention of ever living there. An entire industry had popped up to cater to these foreign investors and help facilitate their purchase of these properties.
I can't say if this law will be able to curb that weirdness, but it should at least make a dent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By definition it will. Fewer potential buyers always means lower top prices. Especially in this case, where the whole point is to prevent rich foreigners from outbidding poor locals.
No. Owning housing produces a certain income for the owner. Either as the rent you can charge from tenants, or increase in the resale price. Both depend on the local supply/demand situation.
If you think this law will be easy to sidestep, please read this post first: https://old.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/zz92li/prohi... It appears that the law is well-designed to avoid such abuses and loopholes. Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1494/