Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Investors account for 30 per cent of home buying in Canada, data show

theglobeandmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 207 posts

Re: Investors account for 30 per cent of home buying in Canada, data show

#121

Post by Dylan16807 »

pjc50 wrote: post #102
theptip wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this includes all landlords too? If I buy a second house, do it up, and rent it, I am an “investor”? While I can see how the delta in this metric is suggestive, it is not clear how it affects the available housing stock (rent+buy). What I think people actually care about is unoccupied investment properties, where someone buys and leaves it vacant. Apparently a lot of Chinese capital is parked in this way due to th…

> If I buy a second house, do it up, and rent it, I am an “investor”? Clearly yes. Under-occupation is a separate issue; it's tempting to argue for an unoccupied homes tax, and politically attractive, but it has to be fairly small otherwise at the margin some houses in poor condition get demolished so the land can sit empty and accumulate value.

It doesn't have to be small for that reason. Tax that land just as hard.

Re: Investors account for 30 per cent of home buying in Canada, data show

#122

Post by ejb999 »

Not sure you will ever be able to ban investors from owning properties that are rented out long-term - a fair amount of the population wants to, or can only afford to, rent - and someone needs to be the landlord.

On the otherhand, it seems like AirBnB's, i.e. short-term rentals, are ripe for some legislation to undo the negative affects they are having on many communities.

Re: Investors account for 30 per cent of home buying in Canada, data show

#124

Post by jeffbee »

tptacek wrote: post #103
Ghostt8117 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you are an investor. You do not live in the home you purchased. You rent it to earn money, i.e., an investment. This creates a huge problem. Rental properties have different regulations in different places. My brother-in-law was not given a lease renewal amnd was forced to move (within 30 days) while, where I live, that is illegal unless there is cause for eviction. It creates instability. Also, my rent increase…

Housing would be (much) more difficult if nobody could rent and everyone had to own the homes they lived in, not easier.

It would work better if people were forbidden from living in homes they also owned, or at least taxed extra for doing so.

Re: Investors account for 30 per cent of home buying in Canada, data show

#125

Post by Dylan16807 »

carom wrote: post #78
goethes_kind wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments should just build a bunch of socialized housing and rent it at a rent just high enough to offset the expenditure (i.e. way below private market value). That would put downward pressure on rents. That is what Vienna did and they are the only popular city in Europe without a serious housing crisis.

That would be so perverse if the government gave itself a monopoly on building housing. Just change zoning and make it legal for the private market to meet the need. Look at all the builders remedy projects in Santa Monica to see that this works.

What definition of "monopoly" are you using here...?

Re: Investors account for 30 per cent of home buying in Canada, data show

#126

Post by 26fingies »

ejb999 wrote: post #122

Not sure you will ever be able to ban investors from owning properties that are rented out long-term - a fair amount of the population wants to, or can only afford to, rent - and someone needs to be the landlord. On the otherhand, it seems like AirBnB's, i.e. short-term rentals, are ripe for some legislation to undo the negative affects they are having on many communities.

> Not sure you will ever be able to ban investors from owning properties that are rented out long-term

Why not? We are making up the rules as we go. The government has the guns, it can do what it wants.

> - a fair amount of the population wants to, or can only afford to, rent

Well a fair amount of the population wants to buy a home remotely close to where their job and family is, but it turns out there's a population representing 30% of all sales that thinks they ought to be landlords.

> - and someone needs to be the landlord.

Doubt.

Re: Investors account for 30 per cent of home buying in Canada, data show

#127

Post by guntars »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #88
plastic3169 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that people have a vote. Most people would like things to stay as it is around where they live. I feel in my country there is not so much tools for NIMBYism as people are not listened to so much. I can support better infrastructure on a city level but can’t really do much if it is decided that the train needs to run over my house.

Yes, people who currently live somewhere get a say, while others who want to move there do not.

Yes, the same people that agree that there’s a housing crisis and that their city should in general have more affordable housing, just not in their specific neighborhood.

Re: Investors account for 30 per cent of home buying in Canada, data show

#128

Post by CapstanRoller »

VHRanger wrote: post #104
konschubert wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just build more houses. North America is big. Stop fighting over scraps.

The fact that it's big doesn't matter. Building a million homes in North Dakota won't help anyone. People need to live near cities, where jobs are. Outside our privileged white collar world where remote work is easy, others need to live in metro areas. We need to build in and near cities, and improve the transit infrastructure.

We also need to create cities, and revitalize dying ones. There are many small towns in the US and Canada where I'd love to buy a house, but they all tend to suffer from the same terminal decline pattern: crumbling infrastructure, lack of opportunities, and a single WalMart supplying everyone while choking out all other business.

Re: Investors account for 30 per cent of home buying in Canada, data show

#130

Post by nomel »

jeffbee wrote: post #124
tptacek wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing would be (much) more difficult if nobody could rent and everyone had to own the homes they lived in, not easier.

It would work better if people were forbidden from living in homes they also owned, or at least taxed extra for doing so.

Could you, please, give more details. This seems very unintuitive, to me.
Post reply on HN