Monday Morning Quarterback: The “National Enquirer” Of Real Estate News

Opinion

8 minute read

May 29, 2023

Do you remember the National Enquirer?

I don’t know if this still exists, but I recall this from my childhood in the 1980’s.

This was a print media publication that offered false headlines (or the only truthful headlines if you’re one of “those” people…), such as Elvis Presley being spotted walking with BigFoot, or space aliens invading Time Square.

But I never saw more than the front cover because any time I asked my mom or dad, “Can we buy that?” they would laugh and shake their heads.

I mean, how could they like their child read something like this:

There was more than just the National Enquirer, if I recall.  I think “Star” or “The Star” was a similar rag, not to be confused with “The Toronto Star,” which is, incredibly, less of a rag.

I believe “Weekly World News” was another, and they continuously ran features on bat child who kept escaping and being re-caught.

When I was about 12-years-old and in the phase were my friends and I would go to corner stores ourselves, with our own money, I finally bought a copy of The National Enquirer.  We took it home, went down to the basement, and opened it up expecting to find some of the worlds’ best kept secrets.

But even at 12-years-old, I knew after about one or two pages that the entire publication was nonsense.

I showed it to my mother and she laughed.

“Where did you get this?” she said with a smile.  “What in the world would possess you to want this?”

I told her that the headlines on the front cover were so incredible that I wanted to learn about the fake moon landing, and the woman that gave birth to fourteen children at once, and that the Bible was actually written as a college prank in 1955.

“The headlines are fake,” my mother told me.  “People read this knowing it’s fake.  It’s for entertainment,” she said.

Well, I guess that made sense!

“News” in 2023 has never been more polarizing and that too makes sense, given all the outlets, publications, and mediums.  A century ago, we had the newspaper and maybe the radio.  A half-century ago, we relied on many of the same newspapers and then the nightly news from one local station and one national station.  Today, I would wager that more people get their news from social media than from print newspapers and television news stations combined.

How has that changed us as a society?

I wonder…

A couple of months ago, I dropped the hammer on BlogTo for their incredibly misleading headlines, which I suggested were strategic in nature as they try to win over the coveted Generation-Z demographic, specifically those who are disenfranchised with life, Toronto, and everything in between.

But the headlines have gotten worse since then, and they’ve culminated with what can only be (and I shudder to use Donald Trump’s catchphrase here, but it fits…) described as “Fake News.”

I hate that term because Donald Trump used it to win over his wilfully ignorant followers who would believe that the earth isn’t round if Donald said, “That’s coming from the fake news media…”

But what’s our alternative phrase?

“Fake News” to Donald Trump is news he doesn’t like.  It’s often factual, scientific, or common knowledge.

So what is fake news then?

This:

 

This is ridiculous.

“Nobody” would be zero people, and that’s mathematically incorrect.

There were 2,160 condo sales in Toronto in the month of April.

But nobody “wants” to buy Toronto condos would mean that even outside of these 2,160 people who dibuy, there isn’t a single person in the city that “would like” to purchase.

As for the market “tanking,” the average 416 condo price was up 2.6% last month, so I’m not sure where this is coming from.

Oh, wait, maybe I do know where it’s coming from.

Guess where?

Nowhere.

This is the very definition of “fake news” and it’s merely clickbait.  Yes, clickbait that caught me, and I’m writing about it on my blog so BlogTO is only going to get more attention as a result.

But that’s not the point today.

We know that BlogTo caters to broke 20-somethings that hate everything, and that isn’t going to change.

What I want to know is this:

What are the thoughts and opinions of Torontonians in response to this article?

There were over 600 comments on the BlogTo article on Friday afternoon, and my team and I, plus a few other agents who were also puzzled by the story, sat down and read over the comments from Toronto readers.

The results were astounding.

First of all, it seemed like every real estate agent in the city posted a comment saying, “This is B.S.”

But more importantly, there are so many comments from Torontonians who believe the contents of the article and who have very wild views about economics, the free market, the role of government, real estate in our city, or what might constitute “common sense.”

Here are a few of those comments…

 

Ah, yes, the bubble!

And “they.”

Who are they, exactly?

You mean “they” as in the buyers and sellers in a free market that define “market price?”

So when a buyer and seller agree on a price of, say, $615,000 for a condominium offered for sale in a free market, the condominium is “not worth as much as they say,” where they are comprised of the buyer who bought, the seller who sold, and the appraiser who appraised?

So who, then, knows the true “worth?”

Lemme guess……….you?

 

Here’s a believer.

And this is the problem with the headline, the story, or anything that BlogTo writes about real estate.

I would also question, “How far do you want ‘prices to fall’ and why?”

This individual might only be able to afford a home of his or her choosing if prices fell, say, 70%.  But would that be good for the market?  The economy?  The city?

People aren’t thinking clearly…

 

Another believer.

Why do you want the market to crash?

Because then you can afford to buy?

But if the market crashed, the economy would crash, and you’d be out of work, and wouldn’t be able to buy.

Is it possible you’re just angry?

 


Jacobs Steakhouse should be selling McDonalds-style hamburgers.

Lexus should focus their efforts on building mopeds and small smart-cars.

Private-sector condominium developers should not be building small studio units because they should start building “full family rental apartments.”

This makes zero sense.

A condo builder builds condos.

“Family rental apartments” is a different product entirely.

Not only that, there’s a certain undertone of affordability with respect to the “family rental apartments,” or maybe I’m just reading into this?  But if a developer built a 1,600 square foot, 3-bedroom, 3-bathroom unit that would be suitable for “families,” this unit would be offered at market rent, which would be $5,000+ in the central core.

Shall I go on and assume the undertone of affordability in this comment further suggests that private-sector condominium developers, in a free market, should be constructing artificially low-priced, affordable apartments?

These sentiments are very common in our city and they’re borne of a lack of understanding of both the difference between the public and private sectors as well as a lack of understanding of the basics of supply and demand.

 

“Wants” versus “Needs” is a very important concept that is taught on the first day of Grade 12 economics, or at least it was when I took the course in 1997…

Nobody “wants” to live in a tiny, expensive box.

People “want” to live in a house.

People “want” the house to be affordable.

But I “want” a Ferrari to drive to work!

I “want” to have my 22-year-old body back!

I just “want” to play; I wanna bang on the drum all day…

There’s no way for everybody in society to get what they “want” in all respects, the least of which is housing.  People “wanting” a house and “wanting” it to be affordable reeks of a 6-year-old “wanting” a hundred-bajllion toys for Christmas!

 


I don’t understand this one.

It’s like this: you go to a restaurant, order a steak, then eat it.  When the bill arrives after the meal, you say, “I don’t want to pay $50 for this steak!”

This makes no sense to me.

Condos have condo fees.  It’s a fact.

But it’s not for nothing.  Condo fees pay for common elements in the building, like the electricity and gas to keep lights on in hallways, or elevators running, or the garage door opening.  Condo fees pay for the labour for concierges, property managers, cleaners, and other employees.  Condo fees pay repairs and renovations in the building.

So how can we not pay condo fees?

I suppose we shouldn’t pay the employees, and we should steal gas and electricity from Toronto Hydro and Enbridge?

Sure, but then it wouldn’t be long before BlogTO has an article about the condo and the residents, like sushi.blonde, that are requiring slave labour at a downtown condo…

 


Well, let’s see, maybe because we’re in a housing crisis?

The solution to a housing crisis is not to build less housing.

This would be like if we had a famine and we decided to stop growing fruits and vegetables, raising livestock, and we torched all the wheat fields so we could never bake bread again.

The hashtag is a nice touch, but I don’t know that this will catch on.

Again, I’m thinking that maybe, just maybe, this is a suggestion that we #EndCondoConstructionNow, and instead, #StartBuildingDetachedHousesThatAreFree

 

Just so you know that it’s not one crazy person suggesting we “stop building condos” in the midst of a housing crisis, but rather this was a theme in the comments section…

 


4 x 4 = 16

There are no 16 square foot condos in the city of Toronto.

Even the “400 square foot condos” mentioned in other comments on this story are twenty-five times as large as a 4 x 4 jail cell.

Also, a standard jail cell is 6 x 8, which is 48 square feet, or three times as large as the fictitious condos you are referencing…

 

The average condo price in the 416 in April of 2018 was $590,275.

The average condo price in April of 2023 was $751,916.

What, exactly did you see coming?

 

A command economy, eh?

You mean like……….North Korea?

A centralized government that owns all businesses and means of production.

Yes.  Yes.  That is exactly what we need here.

Thankfully, the younger generation is coming to our rescue…

 

A scam, how?

“Scam” is a synonym for “fraud.”  These are products selling in a free market.

And who has been burned?

How?  In what way?

When?

Yeesh.  This is 2023.  People just say things and believe them, but even worse is that other people believe them…

 


Let’s.

As in……….us?  We?

Who is “we?”

Is it God?  Is it the government?  Is it the collective will of society?

Too many people out there refer to “we” and “should” as though, “We should be lowering the cost of real estate in Toronto,” when the cost is determined by the forces of supply and demand in a free market.

 

Again, the “let’s” in let’s lower rental prices is another theme in the comments…

 

This one is exceptional.

The 2000’s era.  Alright.

Let’s split the difference and look at the average price in the GTA in 2005.

That’s $335,907.

What was the average sale price in the GTA in 2022?

$1,189,732.

We would have to see a 71.2% decline in the average home price (from 2022) to get “back to 2000’s era prices.”

Source, please.

A “shoebox” in Toronto is $500,000.

Where can you purchase two $250,000 condos or three $166,667 condos, and Luxury at that, in a tropical paradise?

Also, I hate moths.  They eat clothes.

 


 

Folks, we could do this all day.

In fact, I had another dozen of these comments queued up but we’re getting bit long in the tooth here.

The odd reader might find my responses to the thoughts and opinions of these Torontonians to be distasteful, but don’t tell me they’re out of line or in any way incorrect.

People out there just don’t understand the economy, the role of government, and above all, the difference between needs and wants, or perhaps they just don’t want to understand.

But where does that leave us?

I suppose it leaves us in a city where nobody is happy and there are problems everywhere, since that’s, sadly, kind of how I see the city today.

But I truly believe that if everybody in this city were taught even a crash course on macroeconomics, the role of government, the basics of personal finance, and the cost of construction in our city, then we wouldn’t see comments like those posted above.

Or, we would, because many people would still choose to live in a fantasy.

Which is worse though, honestly?

Written By David Fleming

David Fleming is the author of Toronto Realty Blog, founded in 2007. He combined his passion for writing and real estate to create a space for honest information and two-way communication in a complex and dynamic market. David is a licensed Broker and the Broker of Record for Bosley – Toronto Realty Group

Find Out More About David Read More Posts

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

26 Comments

  1. Alex

    at 9:59 am

    Poor Doug Ford, gets blamed for everything. This is awesome David and I completely agree, unfortunately when you and I were taught economics 101, it was mainly unbiased. Today, our liberal educators are teaching our kids the nonsense that is coming out in the comments. Completely out of touch and have no clue. And when you try to explain, educate reality or facts, they call you old or boomer or whatever the catch phrase these days.

    1. Crofty

      at 3:20 pm

      Doug Ford doesn’t get blamed for “stuff” any more than Kathleen Wynne did. Or Dalton McGuinty. Or Ernie Eves. Or Mike Harris, or Bob Rae, or David Peterson, all the way back to everyone’s favourite premier, John S. Macdonald. It simply comes with the territory.

    2. Steve

      at 10:22 am

      Just like Wynne and McGuinty before him Ford is approaching the phase of his leadership of the province where blaming everything on the other guys is going to stop being a viable platform.

  2. Marina

    at 10:07 am

    The other thing people don’t want to understand is cost. Ottawa just announced they are investing $24 million in affordable housing units. They will get 138 units. And that’s great, for what it is, but it’s not going to solve the housing crisis.
    A lot of people seem to be under the impression that the government can just build more housing, in fact all the housing, and make it cheap. But with what money? Because they also want workers to get paid. So you can’t have it both ways.
    And then on top of all that, say the government does build 200,000 affordable housing units. Where will they be? And why do these people assume they will get to live in the unit of their choosing?
    My favorite though is the whole “let’ s make houses and rent cheap”. That does NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. You are just shifting who gets to live where and how much they pay. But you are not adding new units to the market. In fact, you are discouraging building more, because it’s not worth it.
    Build more trains so people can live further out.
    Get better internet infrastructure and tax breaks for corporations who let people work from home.
    Offer tax breaks and quick evictions for people who add basement units to their existing home.
    But crash the economy so “everyone” can afford to live downtown? That’s just real estate fan fiction.

    1. Vancouver Keith

      at 12:30 pm

      Government can build a lot of housing. It was done in Vienna (60% of the housing stock is publicly owned), and in Singapore almost all the land is leased from the government for 99 years, which keeps housing affordable and a perpetual long term stream of income to pay for public services.

      Canada used to build 25,000 units of non market housing per year, back in the nineties. We’ve increased immigration, and decreased the building of non market housing. Result is a housing and affordability crisis.

      What people don’t understand is in Canada you have an unsolvable problem. It has gone on for far too long, and has become far too big of an issue to the point where the solution has become at least as painful as the cure. There isn’t the political will to do what it will really take. Premier Eby of British Columbia is off to Singapore to look at their model for housing affordability. I can’t wait.

      1. Marina

        at 5:59 pm

        If it can be done I’m all for it. I have two kids and I’d love for them to not have to face this when they grow up. I’m just not convinced that people will be any happier to pay for social housing than they are with the lack thereof.
        If we can borrow from the European model for healthcare as well, things would be much better.

    2. Julia

      at 7:13 pm

      If Canada actually did build say 5,000,000 units of affordable housing over a decade – which they won’t, it would end up being rows upon rows upon rows of institutional looking buildings like in Eastern Europe in the 50’s and 60’s. There’s no other way to do it. Big honking detached houses that are subsidized and affordable ain’t happening. If this chat has the ability to post JPEGS we could show some examples.

    3. Steve

      at 9:14 am

      Beyond the cost of actually building it, maintenance is a big issue too. Toronto already has an enormous backlog of maintenance work on existing TCHC stock, adding more government owned housing without a model to deal with that just moves the real cost down the road.

  3. Libertarian

    at 10:20 am

    “But where does that leave us?”

    With Olivia Chow leading the polls and likely to be mayor, unfortunately.

    1. Different David

      at 12:37 pm

      I would disagree with that. The more these “polls” show Chow in front, the more that the silent majority of homeowners will be backing a candidate like Anthony Furey (kind of like a repeat of Rob Ford) who has the promise of cleaning up the waste at City Hall.

      I’m expecting to see a huge surprise on June 26th – Toronto can value-signal all it wants that it is progressive and left-leaning…but when people hear about double digit tax increases, the home and business owners far outgun the tenants in terms of both voting numbers and people who actually make it to the polls.

      1. Moonbeam!

        at 12:48 pm

        I agree. Olivia Chow won’t gain in the polls. Furey will! 🤞

      2. Graham

        at 1:19 pm

        To the David who runs the website,

        Sounds like an opportunity for a contest or a reader poll. Who’s actually going to win the election? Is the Ikea Monkey running?

    2. Anwar

      at 2:17 pm

      Olivia Chow is winning this. Get ready.

      Tear down the Gardiner and increase gridlock with no plan to re-route traffic.

      Add bike lanes in a city that has 4-6 months of bad weather.

      More funding for the arts. Close down the entire city every weekend for some sort of event.

      Increase development fees and act like it’s not passed on to real estate buyers.

      Oppose residential real estate construction but continue to talk about the need for housing.

      More civil servants. Especially crossing guards. We need four at every intersection of the city.

      More breakfast programs at schools. Because it’s not the responsibility of parents to feed their kids.

      Increase funding for TDSB so we can have more studies on how math is racist.

      No cops on the TTC because it’s totally safe. And de fund the police.

      And more safe injection sites. Obvs.

      1. Steve

        at 9:12 am

        I have to say Chow has her issues, but reading these comments acting like her winning will mean the world as we know it will end is more than a little amusing. How many years of conservative leaning mayoral and more recently provincial leadership have we had to get the city into the quagmire it’s in today in the first place?

        If it’s a surprise to you that people are fed up and willing to try something different some introspection on why might be in order.

        1. Crofty

          at 8:19 am

          Well said.

      2. Alex

        at 8:51 am

        Sounds about right. When will people open their eyes and learn?

  4. ParkhurstChild

    at 12:11 pm

    One big take-away from this amazing blog piece:

    “Above all, the difference between needs and wants.”

    That, and ignorance.

  5. Ace Goodheart

    at 1:25 pm

    Found out something very interesting about the “empty homes tax” regime today.

    I have a friend who sometimes works in Vancouver. She has a condo there. Stays in it about two to three months per year.

    I asked her how the empty homes tax was? How was she paying it.

    She laughed. “I don’t pay it” she says. How is that? I ask.

    “Because I rent the condo!” was her response.

    Yup, that is right. If you rent the condo, you are perfectly within your rights to leave it vacant. There is no vacant homes tax for rental condos. Just condos that people actually own.

    So why would she want to pay rent on a condo she only uses for a couple of months per year?

    Because it is much cheaper than owning (considering costs of mortgage, insurance, property tax, and of course the two levels of vacant home taxes she would be paying) and also because whenever she is in Vancouver, she has a “pied a terre” to crash in, anytime of the week.

    She also gets a housing allowance from her employer, so she just uses that to pay most of the rent for the Vancouver condo.

    So if you want to avoid the vacant homes taxes, just rent the condo.

    Weird world we live in……very weird.

    1. Sirgruper

      at 11:53 pm

      Or I rent your condo and you rent mine.

      1. Ace Goodheart

        at 7:34 am

        That may work. A condo swap. Rent is $1.00 per year. Each rents the other’s condo. Then you can live in the condo as much or as little as you like.

        No vacant home tax.

    2. Steve

      at 9:36 am

      That approach is more of a hack of the current state of enforcement than the actual legality, as the declaration the owner must make if it’s rented is that it is “Occupied by an arm’s length tenant or subtenant for residential purposes for at least six months of the current year, in periods of 30 or more consecutive days”.

      I am sure this scenario is a fair way down the list of enforcement to catch up with – which along with the reality that vacant homes aren’t nearly as big an issue as people make out to be is a major flaw in this approach – but it’s not really a gotcha when it comes to the rules.

      1. Ace Goodheart

        at 11:30 am

        I guess to a large extent, that is just a further problem with the vacant house tax. How do you force a tenant to live in your condo for six months of the year? And if they refuse? Do you then apply to the tribunal to evict them? Would the tribunal actually do that? They are paying rent, they are not damaging the unit in any way, they are not causing any trouble. They just don’t actually live there all that much. Most landlords would prefer that (the water bill is a lot less if the tenant is never actually there, for example).

        And I guess, during the year or two that it takes for the tribunal to have the hearing, does the owner have to pay the vacant homes tax?

        This is just another example as to how much of a “goofball” tax the vacant homes tax really is. A property owner could be paying vacant home tax because a tenant, that they cannot evict, chooses to not live in the unit?

        1. Steve

          at 10:16 am

          I would put that down to just another risk of being a landlord in a system where the LTB has been completely hamstrung (although admittedly equally to the disadvantage of tenants with a valid grievance too). After all as has been discussed at length on this blog you also can’t force a person who *is* living there to pay rent in any timely fashion either.

  6. Derek

    at 10:50 am

    Apologies as way off topic, but interesting scenario in my neighbourhood, on a street called Raymond Avenue. 3 detached homes within a 5 iron of each other, listed within 5 days of each other, with similar list prices around $2M. Two appear to hold offers (May 29? and May 31) and the third does not appear to be holding offers. How will it play out?

    1. Different David

      at 11:37 am

      After looking at all 3 properties, I think that 62 will go for the highest – it has a self-contained rental unit in the basement, plus decent sized lot. Although 73 does have the “new clean” look to it, so someone might fall in love and outbid everyone FOMO-style.

      1. Derek

        at 11:53 am

        62 has a strange and long history if you look at HouseSigma. 73 was just finished up. It was a bungalow with bit of a larger footprint than most others and obviously a new second storey added now. The last one was a “quick” flip bought by the current seller. Will be interesting to see how the holding offers / non-holding works out for them. I’m imagining all sellers are “expecting” to sell over list?

Pick5 is a weekly series comparing and analyzing five residential properties based on price, style, location, and neighbourhood.

Search Posts