Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town

Post by vehementi » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:32 AM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #185

jessewmc wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except it's been this way for 30 years. Vancouver house prices have always been higher than Ontario, even back in the 80s when I lived there. So speculation is one thing, but 30 years isn't speculation. And back then they were saying it was foreigners too, especially from Hong Kong. But it's 30 years later, and the house prices haven't abated at all. That isn't speculation, that's a permanently high prices. When my p…

Post by vehementi » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:55 AM UTC

fiblye wrote: post #80

api_or_ipa wrote: post #55

As someone who just moved from Vancouver to the Bay Area, it's obvious the issue isn't housing. It's income. My apartment in trendy yaletown was $2350/month for a very nice 2 bed, 2 bath place within 10 mins of anything in downtown. Try finding something even remotely as nice around Silicon Valley. The issue we should be tackling is the low wages seen in the area. The same developer who could make $100k USD in the va…

The problem there is the >90% of people in Vancouver who aren't in high paying tech fields. It's pretty difficult to say "just triple their wages and they'll afford houses no problem." The real issue is property owners know someone will eventually come along and pay whatever they're asking. If wages were to dramatically increase, they'd never stop and think, "Yeah, I think I'll cap rent at $3000/month because I'm a n…

Post by vehementi » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 6:01 AM UTC

edwinnathaniel wrote: post #144

bonesmoses wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a housing issue, though? Paying for a $2350/mo place on $60k is... pretty ridiculous.

That's a lifestyle issue. No fresh grad ($60k) should live in "trendy" Yaletown district with 2 BR + 2 Bath.

Post by msellout » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 6:06 AM UTC

Grishnakh wrote: post #500

rayiner wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. If the housing costs shoot way up, why should those people suddenly pay more money? Did a real estate bubble suddenly make it more expensive to police the area? I don't think so. The city doesn't need more money, it needs to stick to its budget.

Post by hollerith » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 6:11 AM UTC

CountSessine wrote: post #402

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…

And yet if you ask the average person in the street, they will blame 'interest rates' or 'Chinese buyers', and not once look at the ridiculous blockage on supply. I think that this is the other dimension to the Vancouver housing problem that no one is talking about yet. Vancouver is separated from the rest of the province by the Fraser river to the south-east, and regional development policy for about 30 years has be…