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

581–590 of 629 posts

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

#581

Post by Grishnakh »

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…

What's wrong with #3? Maybe it wouldn't have been popular 10 years ago, but after seeing the disastrous effects of a housing bubble, I for one would be perfectly happy to see property speculation taxed heavily. For instance, I think a simple solution would be to eliminate property taxes altogether for primary residences, but levy significant property taxes on investment properties and second/third homes. You'd have to design this bit well, though, because you don't want to kill the rental market: a lot of people aren't in a position to buy their own home. Perhaps a tax break for a first rental house, but jack up the rates if you own more than one rental house.

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

#582

Post by Grishnakh »

akgerber wrote: post #506
Grishnakh wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? That's crap. Why should single home dwellers have to pay more for water and electricity and gas just because their house is bigger? Then you'll have apartment dwellers running the heat with the windows open. Utilities should be paid per-use, just as it is now. People with bigger houses are naturally going to pay more because a bigger house usually needs more power/fuel for HVAC, unless their house is more effic…

Water and electricity and gas are generally less cost-efficient to provide to less-dense neighborhoods, as the length of wire & pipe (and maintenance overhead) needed to serve a given number of residences is significantly higher. This is likewise why electricity and phone service were not provided to rural areas until subsidized by the government by taxing urban dwellers.

To new neighborhoods, you're right. To existing neighborhoods, you're wrong: the infrastructure is already there. There's no reason to raise rates for people for something that's already paid for. That's like adding a toll to a road that's been there for 50 years; it's just profiteering.

Maintenance is not going to be any higher for lower density; it's not like you see electric utility workers in the suburbs constantly, repairing stuff. And access is more difficult in higher-density housing too: in a suburb, you just drive the truck up to the transformer, but in a large building, it isn't that easy.

As for rural areas, there's a huge difference between urban and rural areas (where houses are miles apart), and urban and suburban areas (where houses are 20 feet apart).

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

#583

Post by Scoundreller »

jbob2000 wrote: post #63
stuxnet79 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toronto's transit is indeed pretty trash. I want to move down to the city but I'm split on whether to put in a down-payment for a condo or piss away my equity by renting. They say the condo market is very volatile right now. Not sure how true this is because I am not very well versed on the subject.

Hey there, I used to work in the condo industry in Toronto. If you had asked me 5-10 years ago if buying a condo was the right decision, I would have said yes. But now, absolutely not. What changed is the respect the builders have for the people buying and living in their buildings. 5-10 years ago, condos were a bit more rare, so a construction company had to try really hard to make their condo appealing. They worked…

Heh, Things I've heard about recently in Toronto new-build condos:

1) Mailboxes are in the basement, so you can't check on your way in.

2) Each unit having a loud spaceship/heat pump instead of one central one. Heat pump is leased, not owned by the unit, so you're paying $45/month in perpetuity. Maintenance not included.

3) Submetering of electricity, where a quarter to half of your bill is in the delivery charge from a random power company (times x units of the building, instead of one for the whole building and incl. it in condo fees)

4) New condo board isn't allowed to fix/improve various promised things until the builder fixes it. Builder waits for it to time-out for 3 years and then the Board has to arbitrate/mediate it with the Builder. Meanwhile, condo board can't touch it.

5) Builders signing exclusive contracts with telecoms, so you can't get service from anyone else.

6) Locks not keyed right, so residents' keys can open mechanical rooms/rooftop access

7) Gym on the second floor, so residents below feel like they're living in a bowling alley

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

#584

Post by Grishnakh »

rayiner wrote: post #508
Grishnakh wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not about raising more money, it's about fairly apportioning the tax burden. Why should two homeowners with the same value of property pay different amounts of taxes just because one is old and has owned the house a long time?

Because the person who has owned the house a long time doesn't have higher income to make up for it, they're likely a retired person on a fixed income.

Since you want them to move out so bad, why don't you have the government pay them to move out? I never see these local governments offer to pony up $10k or so for the moving expenses for people priced out of their houses to move out. These people bought a house in a town thinking it'd be a good place to settle down, not that they'd be forced out of their house in a decade or two. It's really no better than forced relocation, which is a form of genocide.

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

#585

Post by Grishnakh »

msellout wrote: post #527
Grishnakh wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Prices don't rise spontaneously (or not exactly). There's increased demand, which usually means more people living and working in the area. Therefore, in fact the cost of policing and everything else does increase.

Yes, they do rise spontaneously. There are not more people living and working in the area: the prices of the existing houses have risen, just because of speculation and flipping. It's not like there's more people getting packed into these houses (for the most part).

You only get more people living and working in the area if you build more houses. If you do that, then of course you're going to have more property tax, even if the existing house values don't change at all. New houses = new property taxes. That's how you pay for the extra policing, not by soaking the existing residents.

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

#586

Post by Grishnakh »

Arnt wrote: post #553
Grishnakh wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does, actually. The police, like all the other things the city does, needs buildings for its work and housing for its employees.

No, it doesn't, actually.

The police can get their money from the property tax for any new residents who have built new houses.

If there's no new houses, then there's no net increase in population, and there's no need for more police, or more police buildings.

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

#587

Post by allannienhuis »

hollerith wrote: post #529
CountSessine wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn't most of the land sourth of the Fraser prone to flooding?

no, it's all diked appropriately for the most part. Of course some would like the diking to be improved as there has been some minor flooding every 20 years or so. But that flooding is typically limited to the lowest areas which are almost always agricultural land. It would be a huge stretch to say the area is prone to flooding.

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

#588

Post by allannienhuis »

thinkdoge wrote: post #494
doublerebel wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

work remotely? TN visa effectively lets you earn US wages.

Vancouver (area) is still a wonderful place to live. Working remotely lets you do that while earning enough to enjoy it. :)

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

#589

Post by oasisbob »

Grishnakh wrote: post #584
rayiner wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about raising more money, it's about fairly apportioning the tax burden. Why should two homeowners with the same value of property pay different amounts of taxes just because one is old and has owned the house a long time?

Because the person who has owned the house a long time doesn't have higher income to make up for it, they're likely a retired person on a fixed income. Since you want them to move out so bad, why don't you have the government pay them to move out? I never see these local governments offer to pony up $10k or so for the moving expenses for people priced out of their houses to move out. These people bought a house in a…

I think that's a stretch.

Being priced out of a market is not the same thing as genocide.

Population transfer is a different thing from gentrification is a different thing from eminent domain is a different thing from genocide.

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

#590

Post by lawnchair_larry »

vkou wrote: post #332
gearoidoc wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Senior engineers at Microsoft/Amazon/Google earn ~200-400K USD. (All-in) If you can 'live well' in the more expensive Vancouver at a 110K CAD salary, you could easily save an extra 100-200K USD by moving to Seattle.

You're very wrong. I have actual wage data from all 3 of those companies.
Post reply on HN