Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

Post by ajeet_dhaliwal » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 3:11 AM UTC

api wrote: post #428

msvan wrote: post #82

It seems like many major cities of the world are experiencing this problem, and no city has been able to come up with a good solution. It always leads to displacement and newspaper articles about displacement, but no real solutions. Here are a couple of solutions: 1. Build really tall. Hasn't worked out all that great in Hong Kong, though. 2. Rent control. This is often unfair and inflates price of non-rent controlle…

I think it's a symptom of something else: the hyper-centralization of relevance and cultural center of gravity in only a few places. When I was younger (1990s), I don't remember it mattering so much where you were located. I've spoken to older people and they concur: they've all said that when they were young being in, say, Indianapolis or Toledo was not a big deal. Today, at least in the USA, there's a strong sense…

Post by thinkdoge » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 3:13 AM UTC

doublerebel wrote: post #407

refurb wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the real problem is foreign ownership. What evidence is there that foreign ownership is a major problem? I've heard plenty of anecdotes, but no actual data. I do know that Vancouver real estate agents are milking the "yellow peril" for all it's worth. "Buy now before China owns all of Vancouver!". Suffice to say, Canadians are doing what American's did in the early 2000's. They are going into a crazy amount of…

I have a lot of love for Vancouver, but the strange insistence on low salaries in an expensive housing market, with serious traffic and physical natural barriers to transportation, is a real problem. I know of several developers, whose advice and preference is to move out of the city (closer to skiing/biking/etc) and work remotely for a US company. There is plenty of evidence of the foreign property issue, and the wi…

Post by eru » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 3:22 AM UTC

iofj wrote: post #488

ScottBurson wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This means you have people living in Sydney with multi-million dollar properties - which are just modest houses in now-desirable suburbs - who haven't paid any property tax since the 60's, and who can't move anywhere because they'd be up for so much stamp duty in one hit (easily 50-100k). I don't understand. When you're making millions on the sale of the property, how is 100k in stamp duty a problem? It's on the sa…

Why isn't every house incorporated (bought by a company, then have that company bought/sold instead of the house) ? Note: this is how it's done for a lot of houses in western europe, and there it's a 100% legal way to avoid this tax. The problem is that you're going to have to pay 30% company tax on profits, and it's hard to get a mortgage. However this can always be structured so there aren't any profits (e.g. by im…

Post by eru » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 3:27 AM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #443

brc wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even worse in Australia, which most properties do not have a yearly property tax. So you pay a 'stamp duty' when you purchase the property, based on a % of the sale price. This means you have people living in Sydney with multi-million dollar properties - which are just modest houses in now-desirable suburbs - who haven't paid any property tax since the 60's, and who can't move anywhere because they'd be up for s…

This sounds like an excellent argument for getting rid of property taxes altogether. Property taxes have some major fundamental problems, not least of which that using them to pay for local services tends to make such services better in more affluent areas and worse in less affluent areas. They produce potentially unbounded and unexpected expenses long after paying off the house itself (which impacts retirees and oth…

Post by Grishnakh » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 3:34 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #447

rdlecler1 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those house owning elderly you're feeling sorry benefitted from the biggest bull market it history. They may have saw 100x gains on their house while many youth will are spending 30-50% of their income on housing if they're lucky to get a good job. If they do, they can look forward to paying entitlements to these elderly people while they themselves may never see the same turn done to them because the system will be…

It's insane. The people who don't work live close to the business districts collecting social security paid for by the people who do work who have to commute in from afar for the privilege. Then the people who don't work vote themselves favorable property tax rules so they don't have to pay their fair share of keeping up the city.