Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes • Hacker News Board

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#221

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 12:21 AM UTC

dan-robertson wrote: post #187

fatbird wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to show proof of citizenship and residency during conveyance. When my wife and I recently bought, our driver licences and passports were recorded by the lawyer, pretty much just to tackle this issue. A foreign investor would need to arrange for straw purchasers to avoid the law, but that in itself would be an act of consciousness of guilt for breaking this law.

Suppose I’m in the position of the person in comment I replied to above: I look out of my window and see some empty apartments. Some time later, I write on hacker news that they were not for sale but held by foreigners as investments. Are you suggesting that, between these two steps, I would conveyance the sale of one of those apartments and thereby determine that it was bought as an investment property by a foreigne…

[deleted]

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#222

Post by herdymerzbow » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 12:22 AM UTC

stoppingin wrote: post #189

plantain wrote: post #140

I really don't understand why governments around the globe just throw their hands in the air and pretend housing is an unsolvable problem for which they have no obligation to fix. It wasn't always like this - in 1922 in Australia we realised there was a shortage of 25,000 homes, so they just made it happen [1]. Why are we so impotent today? Do we just not care enough? Are the vested interests too powerful? [1] https:…

Sydney's metropolitan area is already oversized. People are already regularly commuting for well over an hour to the city center on congested public transport, or driving on congested roadways. I don't think Melbourne is much different Where would we put 25,000 new homes today?

Rob Adams, former City Architect at City of Melbourne, did a study a little while ago that showed you could fit in 1 million more residents if you filled in grayfield sites with medium density, and without impacting on existing heritage zoning. Grayfield being existing under-utilised land (i.e open carparks that can could be built over).

It's been a while since I watched this video but the proposal is for 5 storey high developments along transport corridors that do not tower over suburbs like high density developments, but which also serve to engage with street life more effectively than existing low density.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYJpdH-VGwc

It can be done. But obviously needs a departure from existing low density suburban sprawl, and a tight control over overdevelopment. But it can actually result in better amenities, faster transport, for residents.

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#223

Post by seattle_spring » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 12:22 AM UTC

plantain wrote: post #154

pxue wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supply is artificially controlled by voters who don't want density to increase, masked behind preservations, environmental concerns or just plain corruption

What changed? Governments used to aggressively intervene in the housing market.

A full half of the voting base, or more, fervently vote against their own best interest. Seems like it’s happening in Europe and has taken deep roots in places like Brazil, too. People can’t really be surprised that bad things are happening when they explicitly vote for bad things to happen.

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#224

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 12:22 AM UTC

plantain wrote: post #154

pxue wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supply is artificially controlled by voters who don't want density to increase, masked behind preservations, environmental concerns or just plain corruption

What changed? Governments used to aggressively intervene in the housing market.

[deleted]

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#225

Post by HWR_14 » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 12:22 AM UTC

rippercushions wrote: post #98

smnrchrds wrote: post #55

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…

Someone who buys a single family home is depriving a family of the ability to own a home. A 4+ unit complex is unlikely to fall into the same situation. Those are often rented out. You're right that it might prevent owned condos from forming instead of apartments, but the only thing that gap allows is the sale of an entire complex, and the only thing it prevents is conversion of new apartment buildings to condos. Once they are condos, a foreign investor would need to buy them all at the same time.

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#226

Post by acchow » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 12:25 AM UTC

dan-robertson wrote: post #112

jay_kyburz wrote: post #85

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.

14.1M occupied private dwellings[1] 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/…

Are you aiming for each dwelling to be occupied by only 1 person?

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#227

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 12:25 AM UTC

asdff wrote: post #70

JacobThreeThree wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if the government of Canada used just 1% of the 89% of crown land it owns out of all the land in Canada to give to people for housing.

There's no shortage of land in Canadian cities or really any western city in a housing crisis today. The problem is that this land is squandered on lower density development that is illegal to improve into higher density development thanks to zoning mandating low density. Zoning must keep up with job growth or else you end up with the situations we see today: wealthy people entering bidding wars on an 80 year old ori…

> no shortage of land in Canadian cities or really any western city in a housing crisis today

Adding to this: various parts of America still homestead [1].

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2010/11/16/7-Towns-Where-Land-is-Free.h...

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#228

Post by smnrchrds » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 12:25 AM UTC

revolvingocelot wrote: post #198

smnrchrds wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, there's some language later on which allows a province's superior court to order that the house be sold. Be sold. What a punishment! And unless it's some massive televised case, the superior courts don't have time for that. 1. I sincerely doubt that the courts will let the law remain unenforced. Let's agree to disagree on that. 2. The reddit post goes into details (which I agree with) about how this law chang…

"Unenforced"? No, no -- the $10,000 fine will be collected. It's just the forced sale that might not occur if the superior courts are busy (and they are!), and if it does occur, the foreign nearly-buyer will be out $10,000. There's no need to encourage baseless Reddit speculation, just read the law itself -- I've linked it, you've linked it -- and reason about how the government will act based on the last 30 years of…

Again, I don't agree with your cynicism. But even if you are cynical, consider this: if the government appears soft on real estate prices, they will lose the next election (which may be as early as this spring) to Pierre Poilievre.

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#229

Post by pigsty » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 12:26 AM UTC

voisin wrote: post #86

verdenti wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Canadian, Canada needs way more people for how much habitable land we have.

I 100% concur. Canada would benefit by having a population 2-3x current. I am always amazed how in the US there are so many cities with vibrant cultures in the 50-80k range whereas in Canada you can drive vast distances and only find tiny settlements of a few thousand people and no services or culture to speak of.

Meanwhile a substantial number of Americans are envious of Canadian life and how much safer Canadian cities are. The grass is always greener.

Re: Canada bans most foreigners from buying homes

#230

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Jan 03, 2023, 12:26 AM UTC

stoppingin wrote: post #215

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> renters stopped voting Renters also got co-opted into being NIMBYs out of fear of gentrification.

This idea is pure fantasy. This condition of classifying people as NIMBYs if they disagree with you on this topic is incredibly toxic. There are a plethora of totally valid reasons why people would be opposed to endless urban sprawl, consolidation, and population growth.

> plethora of totally valid reasons why people would be opposed to endless urban sprawl, consolidation, and population growth

Totally agree. But the counterpart of that is rising housing costs. If you accept that tradeoff, you aren't a NIMBY. This covers many homeowners. But renters opposed to development while complaining about housing costs are trying to suppress their housing costs by increasing others'. That externalization is textbook NIMBY.