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

Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

business.financialpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 629 posts

Re: Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

#301

Post by Symbiote »

infinite8s wrote: post #272
zanny wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except I'm not - there already exist squatters rights to occupy someones elses property and eventually claim it their own if they can avoid detection long enough. All that takes is the minimum effort to police the property you own to insure nobody is squatting. What I'm saying is that unconditionally whether or not someone is illegally occupying your property you only have a fixed amount of time to make use of it bef…

No developed country supports anything remotely like squatter's rights.

Try the UK: https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law/squatters-rights-to-propert...

I suspect several other European countries have similar rights.

Re: Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

#302

Post by ido »

GFischer wrote: post #229
jlangenauer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved to Berlin recently from Sydney. My rent is 60% of what I was paying in Sydney, and for a nicer apartment. I can't believe more people aren't moving here. (Maybe I shouldn't say so. Keep the secret to those who know.)

Well, as someone who's considering Australia and NZ as potential destinations, both language and visa situations are big hurdles to clear for moving to Berlin. Maybe you have an European or U.S. citizenship, but they're harder towards South Americans. Also, software development salaries weren't something to write home about last time I checked (that was some a long time ago admittedly). Edit: According to Glassdoor,…

$80k AUD is €50k, sounds pretty close to me.

Re: Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

#303

Post by serge2k »

pakled_engineer wrote: post #118
jimpick wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This! The tech salaries are absurdly low. The tech CEOs who pay poor wages and are complaining about their inability to retain talent are the same ones blaming real estate.

The taxes are also high https://simpletax.ca/calculator Select BC and enter in the typical income for an experienced developer in Vancouver which is 75k. Your take home salary is $59,000 plus you aren't offered any options usually just straight pay. This doesn't include all the other deductions such as EI and CPP. Now convert CAD to USD and you're a professional experienced developer making $42,000 USD per year, in o…

Interesting, my take home would be about the same if I was making the same amount in Vancouver (ignoring exchange rate).

neat.

Now I just need to find a job paying that amount... oh wait. :/

Re: Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

#304

Post by rezashirazian »

jessewmc wrote: post #152
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #150

If having essentially no affordable housing rendered a city an economic ghost town, then much of the Bay area and Manhattan would be "ghost towns" - which, in turn, would lower housing prices radically. What might happen to Vancouver is probably similar to other major cities with housing crunches but an otherwise desirable economic climate: lower wage workers will be displaced further from the city and forced to comm…

The problem in Vancouver is the house prices are not driven by economic activity in the city itself. Bay area and Manhattan prices are a product of the local economies. Vancouver prices are a product of speculation and wealthy people who live/have property there but don't work there.

As someone who grew up in Vancouver this sums up the problem.

Re: Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

#305

Post by Agustus »

svachalek wrote: post #245
fiatmoney wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 13 has nothing to do with real estate price inflation. If anything, shifting of property tax burdens from long-time homeowners to new homeowners would tend to suppress prices. Shifting that burden evenly across the population would tend to cause more churn as long-time homeowners get pushed out, but would do nothing to increase aggregate housing or lower aggregate prices. Although, you can get pretty far into th…

A 4-bedroom house bought in the 70s is far more affordable than a 1-bedroom condo bought today, which creates a situation where no one can afford to move out of their homes. It's a massive tax benefit for themselves, their children, and grandchildren, that instantly and irrevocably goes away when they sell the house. No matter how high the market drives prices there is little incentive to sell. I don't know how much…

That is not a fair assessment of the situation. There are a number of factors that have been put in place by the populace and government agencies to force this situation in the bay area:

1. Rent Control: This forces an incentive not to move. If you are in the 4-bedroom house at $1,500 a month for the past 15 years, a comparable 4-bedroom house is now $6,000. There is no incentive to move and owner's have little incentive to bring up to standard something they are not going to get an ROI on. In this instance, Prop 13 actually makes the situation bearable for the landlords, think if the costs went up and your return stayed static.

2. Building Restrictions: Between the historical board, local populace anger to building, and zoning enforcement, the bay area's supply has been static while demand has increased. There are workarounds, but they border on illegal (i.e. the guy who turned a storage closet into a baby's room for additional space); essentially sub-dividing up existing property.

Within the Bay area, the ability to move a demand curve down has not existed, so the prices have risen to meet the existing supply. Prop 13 has no direct effect on these two items except a positive effect for the landowners in reducing the tax burden that would have forced early bankruptcy for them because of the rent control.

Re: Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

#306

Post by infinite8s »

Symbiote wrote: post #301
infinite8s wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No developed country supports anything remotely like squatter's rights.

Try the UK: https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law/squatters-rights-to-propert... I suspect several other European countries have similar rights.

From that site:

"Land Registry will decide if your application is valid and will let the property owner know. The owner has 65 days to object - your application will usually be automatically rejected if they do."

So basically you'll only get to stay if the property is effectively abandoned.

Re: Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

#307

Post by rhino369 »

Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #99
zanny wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to just see a return to homesteading period. If a property goes unused / unoccupied for a year, anyone can move in. No more land squatting to drive up real estate prices and use it as a store of wealth. Yes, this kills real estate as a long term investment. No, that is a good thing, we should collectively much rather see capital invested in the stock market rather than being thrown into precious metals or pr…

Adverse possession is one mechanism to seize property from absentee owners that is already on the books.

That takes forever and if you try it you can get arrested for trespass.

Re: Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

#308

Post by serge2k »

skewart wrote: post #142

It blows my mind that the internety tech industry, of all industries, is so heavily concentrated in a handful of physical locations around the world. There's this vicious cycle where companies think they need to be in one of these places to attract the best talent, and employees think they need to live in one of these places to have the best career options. Sometimes when I'm at Red Door in SOMA, overhearing twenty d…

Vancouver is a great place to live, people don't stay there because they are forced to.

Re: Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

#309

Post by bdcravens »

neptunespear wrote: post #299

I live in Vancouver. Well, Burnaby. Like many Vancouverites on HN I am studying for a comp sci degree, and want to work as a developer. I accept that I have to make sacrifices to keep living in Vancouver, such as: -Living in a suburb (like Burnaby) -Getting roommates/a shared room -Living on a bus route instead of being a 5 minute walk from Skytrain With those sacrifices, I can find rents for $750-1000/month. $750 is…

Are these amounts expensive for a developer there? I pay $1150 monthly rent ($1600 CAD) for a so-so house outside of Houston.

Re: Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

#310

Post by gearoidoc »

vkou wrote: post #249
gearoidoc wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CAD 110k is definitely enough to get a decent place, live comfortably and save some money in Vancouver. But then again 'decent' and 'comfortably' are subjective.

Yes, it's enough to rent in a decent place, live comfortably, and save ~20K/year. A senior engineer in Seattle can do the same, and save ~100K/year.

I'd love to live in your world! How much do you think senior engineers earn?

Most people would do well to save 20% but even assuming people save 33% then you reckon senior engineers earn over 300k?

Post reply on HN