A friend of mine told me yesterday, “You’ve already written that blog post, I know you have.”
I told him I hadn’t, double-checked, and then confirmed with him that I had not.
“Oh,” he said. “Well I guess you talk about it so often that it almost feels like you’ve written it before, many times!”
When I was away in Idaho in late-August, somebody sent me this CBC News article:
“Even Homeowners In Vancouver, Toronto Want Housing Prices To Fall, Poll Suggests”
The headline itself was a bit silly. I felt it was a bit contrived, and the “poll” they speak of, perhaps, a bit misleading. How could anybody who owns a home want his or her home to decrease in value? Unless that person is hoping to buy a larger, more expensive home, and save money on that, (ignoring that their existing home would decrease in value as well), or if that person was misinformed, or didn’t understand the question.
But the most interesting part of the article to me had nothing to do with the poll, but rather was the choice the CBC made with respect to the photo that would accompany the article. They used this one:
(Tina Lovgreen/CBC)
What does that photo have to do with the poll that says homeowners want housing prices to fall?
The caption to the photo was this:
Residents in Vancouver rallied in February, demanding governments do more to make housing affordable and sustainable in the city. A recent Angus Reid poll suggests even homeowners in Vancouver and Toronto think housing prices are too high.
The story itself wasn’t really tied to the photo, or the caption to the photo, to which my cynical side figured that this was simply a prop being used to drive home a point, but I decided to dig a little deeper into this notion of housing as a “right,” and I compiled a bounty of articles from the past year essentially arguing exactly that.
A right.
Not a privilege, but a right.
And although I would lean right of centre, I can see that. I can see housing as a right, considering that healthcare is a right in Canada, and housing should, in theory, come before healthcare.
But the larger question I have with respect to housing as a right has not to do with the right, but rather the housing itself.
What kind of housing is a right? And where? For how long? For whom? Under what circumstances? And so on.
My cynical side sees the gentleman in the photo above, holding the sign saying “Make Housing A Right,” and wonders if he’s fallen on hard times, and wants the government to provide him with a bedroom in a house with other people, at no cost, until he can work to get back on his feet, or whether he wants the government to subsidize his purchase of a waterfront condo in Vancouver.
Therein lies my issue with this argument of “housing as a right,” and try as I might, I can’t help but be cynical.
Society in 2018 wants, wants, wants, and takes, takes, takes. People in society today, in my opinion, do not give as much as they want, and ultimately want to take.
And while the long-time readers may be tired of me going back to Economics 101, and introducing the concept of “wants versus needs,” I think it’s important in the context of housing as a “right,” because what type of housing will ultimately be shaped by wants versus needs:
One important idea in economics is that of needs and wants. Needs would be defined as goods or services that are required. This would include the needs for food, clothing, shelter and health care. Wants are goods or services that are not necessary but that we desire or wish for. For example, one needs clothes, but one may not need designer clothes. One does not need toys, entertainment, gems, etc.. One needs food, but does not have to have steak or dessert. One does not need glamorous trips, mall shopping, etc.
Excellent.
So take that analogy further, and you can see where I’m going with this.
A human being “needs” shelter. But what is that shelter?
That will ultimately be the basis for debate as it pertains to “housing as a right,” and the government’s role.
Because I believe that “housing as a right,” as many people see it (including the person pictured in the photo above), differs drastically from the economic definition. And ultimately the way the government has acted in the past may have fanned the flames of public expectation.
I’ve made this point before as well, as recently as last week, but I go back to the 2018 Provincial election and just marvel at how the parties were racing to give away “Free Stuff” in order to get votes. It was the most pathetic display of political pandering I have ever seen.
Free everything, from the government, at apparently no cost.
And that seems to be what people want out there today. They want the government to provide.
I would argue that this was never intended to be the role of government. The government’s role is to govern.
The average person has thousands of wants or needs on a daily basis, but which of these ultimately falls under the government’s responsibility?
Let’s go back to the second-most useful thing I learned in first-year-university psychology (the first-most being the definition of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which made me realize I was not insane) and take a look at Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, at least as a starting point, to dry and draw a “line” somewhere:
At the very bottom, we have physiological needs, which are those essentially needed for survival.
These are the most basic human needs, and I believe that if you’re looking for a starting point for the role and responsibility of government in every human’s life, this is a good place to begin.
Air, food, water, shelter, clothing, sleep.
The government, in one way or another, offers help to Canadians in all of these regards.
And the idea of providing shelter to all Canadians makes sense as part of responsibility of a government to promote the welfare of its population, and I’m all for that. Who wouldn’t be?
But what about the second level up?
Health, employment, property, family, and social stability?
Does, or should, the government provide this to the population as well?
The Canadian government provides healthcare, and most governments provide some sort of employment insurance, as well as assistance securing employment. Can the government provide “social stability?” To some extent, yes. I don’t know if there’s been any one area of healthcare more promoted in the last few years as mental health, and this is a way of providing “social stability,” or the tools to attain it.
But what about property? Is that a “need” that the government can, or should, be responsible for?
Let’s argue for a moment that the first tier of the hierarchy is where it starts and ends with “rights” for Canadians, and shelter is one of those needs that will become a right.
How does one define “shelter” anyways?
There’s a difference with housing being a “right” in regards to every man, woman, and child having a bed to sleep in at night, and, say, a 24-year-old being able to afford the market rent on a 1-bed, 1-bath at Bay & Bloor.
In November of 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared housing a “human right,” by offering the following:
“Housing rights are human rights and everyone deserves a safe and affordable place to call home… and one person on the streets in Canada is too many.”
This probably wasn’t the first time that a politician offered something that could never be put into practice, and it surely won’t be the last.
“Safe and affordable.”
Impossible. Absolutely impossible, and I can’t be convinced to see it as anything but.
In response to Mr. Trudeau’s press conference last November, where he announced his National Housing Strategy, the United Nations said the following:
“While most governments are involved to some degree in housing construction, the right to adequate housing clearly does not oblige the government to construct a nation’s entire housing stock. Rather, the right to adequate housing covers measures that are needed to prevent homelessness, prohibit forced evictions, address discrimination, focus on the most vulnerable and marginalized groups, ensure security of tenure to all, and guarantee that everyone’s housing is adequate.”
If you happen to have a LOT of time on your hands, you might enjoy the 58-page report from the U.N. Habitat called, “The Right To Adequate Housing.”
The Liberal government did pledge $40 Billion to address the housing market in Canada, but the actual implementation of the National Housing Strategy is going to wait until after the next federal election.
The plan promises that 530,000 Canadian households will find more suitable housing once strategy is fully implemented.
But is it enough?
Many Canadians don’t think so.
Many Canadians want the government to “officially” declare housing a right.
This article was also published while I was away: “Federal Legislation Needed To Declare Housing A Right, Coalition Says.”
The Coalition doesn’t specify how to cure homelessness, affordability issues, et al. Simply that “housing as a right” should be written into law.
And you know what? I don’t have a problem with that.
I have a problem with nonsense like……………air conditioning as a human right. That was a story that made headlines this past summer, and it reeks of the entitlement of society. Since when does a feature, or an upgrade become a right?
That is where I see society going. But that’s my problem, not yours.
We’re talking about housing.
My problem with “housing as a right,” is that I can see the same people who want air conditioning as a right, believing that they deserve, or should receive, or are entitled to, something more than just “housing.”
What type of housing, what style, how large, which location, what condition, which features, what amenities, and on, and on, and on.
If we’re going to talk about housing as a right, then we have to talk about expectations, personal and financial responsibility, and financial literacy.
“Metro Vancouver Renters Praying For A Housing Crash, New Poll Shows”
What’s that about?
Is that logical? Is that reasonable? Or is that some version of sour grapes?
Are we now at the point where onlookers are cheering for the real estate market to implode? Because part of me thinks, and while this may come off as extremely elitist, I assure you I am not that – many people in society today refuse to accept their own circumstances in life, as given.
Not every person in Canada can own a house. It’s not possible. It hasn’t happened in any other country in the world, and it would defy all economic logic. And specifically, not every person can own a house or condo in Vancouver or Toronto! So I wish people would stop acting like being born in one of these cities, and/or being gainfully employed in one, gives them the right not just to own, but to own what they want.
Not every person can afford the rent on a 1-bedroom condo in downtown Toronto; the third-largest metropolitan area in North America. Some people have to live with a roommate, some people have to downsize to a bachelor, some people need to live at home longer, and some need to, well, you know – not live in a 1-bedroom condo in downtown Toronto.
I guess I just feel like the more the government “gives,” the less people will be incentivised to work for it.
The more I see articles about people screaming for the government to “do something” about expensive housing markets, the more I feel as though “housing as a right” is not about providing shelter to the homeless, housing for those in poor mental health or disabled, and subsidies for low-income families, but rather it’s about caving to the wants of society, rather than the needs.
So in the end, I hope to see two things happen:
1) Housing does, in fact, become a right in Canada, and the government finds a way to enact a well-thought-out, viable, realistic national housing strategy, that is focused on the long-term sustainability of major urban centres, and not simply the short-term reaction among voters.
2) The definition of that “right” is specified in extreme detail, and that right is not abused, not altered, and not turned into Christmas.
Do you think that can happen?
RPG
at 8:33 am
Nothin quite like a can of worms for breakfast on a Monday!
Chris
at 9:00 am
“How could anybody who owns a home want his or her home to decrease in value?”
“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.”
– Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments
“I have a problem with nonsense like……………air conditioning as a human right.”
“Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore, called it [air conditioning] “perhaps one of the signal inventions of history”. It has transformed productivity in the tropics and helped turn southern China into the workshop of the world. In Europe, its spread has pushed down heat-related deaths by a factor of ten since 2003, when 70,000 more people than usual, most of them elderly, died in a heatwave. For children, air-conditioned classrooms and dormitories are associated with better grades at school.”
– The Economist, August 25, 2018
As for housing as a right, well that’s up for debate. Shelter, I would lean towards agreeing with, particularly given our climate. Housing, it depends how it is defined. Property, absolutely not.
Geoff
at 2:52 pm
anyone who pays taxes based on the value of their home, might want their home to decrease in value.
Kyle
at 9:07 am
I bristle at the ignorance and entitlement when i see articles like this one:
https://www.straight.com/news/1133466/derrick-okeefe-cope-has-plan-smash-rent-hikes-vancouver
I agree that shelter should be a right, one that is provided for by Society. What i don’t agree with is that market housing should be a right, and certainly not one provided solely on the backs of landlords. And every time the Government caves to these entitled demands, they set back long term affordability as Developers of purpose built rentals defer, delay or cancel projects.
If the Government wants to improve affordability, make it easier and less risky to increase the supply of rentals.
Chris
at 9:17 am
“And every time the Government caves to these entitled demands, they set back long term affordability as Developers of purpose built rentals defer, delay or cancel projects.”
I would have agreed with you, as it seems obvious this would be the result, but it appears that Toronto has seen more development in purpose-built rentals, even on the heels of Ontario’s Fair Housing Plan.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/the-market/article-toronto-sees-a-surge-in-purpose-built-rental-development/
Kyle
at 9:31 am
These are projects that would have been planned and started before the FHP was announced. The reduction on purpose built rentals from the FHP, won’t be seen until a few years out.
Chris
at 9:43 am
Maybe. Like I said, my inclination would be to agree with you, but I’ll wait and see what the data says over the next few years with regards to starts and completions before coming to a conclusion.
Seems, at least anecdotally, some developers are still planning new purpose-based rental projects:
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/09/mid-rise-rental-redevelopment-proposed-wilson-near-keele
daniel b
at 10:38 am
Chris, there was an interesting and unintended consequence of the Fair Housing Plan. Landlords, perhaps not surprisingly, responded to the rent controls on tenants by dramatically increasing the price of vacant units. Whereas they used to prioritize eliminating vacancy and getting the best tenant, they now focus on maximizing the rent knowing that their increases are limited. Tenants responded by basically paying whatever the landlords asked, because there’s effectively no vacancy out there.
Now, with rents spiking across the city, and particularly in some sub markets, the numbers for a rental building actually look better to some degree because the going in rents are looking better. In a nutshell, we’re now projecting less rental growth following leaseup but are anticipating better initial rents. NB, i think this dynamic only really works in a market with effectively zero vacancy.
That said, i do know of a number of projects that have been pulled as rental, and a few players who were shopping for sites but have stopped. Far more than the rent control as an issue is just the overall cost structure. For a 2 br apartment i’m paying the various levels of gov’t almost $150k. Costs at least a quarter million in direct construction costs to build. So i’m at $400k before any of the soft costs, land or profit. Don’t expect affordable housing any time soon!
Chris
at 10:48 am
Yes, all of your points are reasonable.
I can certainly see the arguments in support of and against the development of purpose built-rentals in this rent-controlled era. I’m not entirely sure which side will win out, hence why I am waiting to see more data as we go forward.
Kyle
at 11:43 am
Another impact from the FHP, is the returns are better from renovating and charging more rent on existing units than it is from from creating new ones. Which is why you hear so much about “renovictions” these days and you now see landlords diverting capital to “improving” their existing units rather than creating new ones.
Chris
at 12:13 pm
From the Landlord Tenant Board:
“Renovation/repair
If a tenant is given a notice because of extensive repairs or renovations, the tenant can choose to move back into the rental unit after the repairs or renovations are complete. The rent must be the same as the rent before the tenancy was terminated.”
Ontario’s former housing minister commented, stating in a letter to the Toronto Star:
“The law is clear in that tenants are allowed to return when renovations are completed.”
From the same article:
“Violations of the Residential Tenancies Act can result in fines for individuals of up to $25,000 per count and for corporations of up to $100,000 per count.”
Kyle
at 1:03 pm
“A landlord may make an above guideline increase (AGI) application in any of the following situations:
There has been an extraordinary increase in the cost for municipal taxes and charges for the residential complex or any building in which the rental units are located. See RTA s. 2(1), s.126(1).1, s.126(2) and O.Reg 516/06, s.28, s.29 and s. 41;
The landlord has eligible capital expenses (extraordinary or significant renovation, repair, replacement or new addition the expected benefit of which extends for at least five years) for the residential complex or one or more of the rental units in it. Tenants who began their tenancy after the capital expenditure was completed cannot be included in this application. See RTA s.126(1).2,126(7),126(8),126(9) and O.Reg 516/06, s.18, s.26-28;”
Chris
at 1:29 pm
Yes, a landlord can absolutely submit an application to the Landlord Tenant Board for an above guideline increase.
This will then go to a hearing, which will assess all of the documentation, the purposes of the renovation, if it qualifies as an eligible capital expenditure, and a myriad of other factors (continue reading down the page you referenced for all of the conditions).
When you say that landlords are “improving” their existing units, it is questionable if the LTB would qualify that as an eligible capital expenditure, thus allowing for an above guideline increase.
“A capital expenditure to replace a system or thing is not an eligible capital expenditure if the system or thing that was replaced did not require major repair or replacement”
Renovating a system that is already functioning, simply for the purpose of improving it (not maintaining the function or physical integrity) would likely be deemed ineligible.
Finally, even if we were to assume that the LTB allowed for an above guideline increase, what percentage increase do we reasonably think they would permit? I suspect it would be less than the 200% increase cited in the Toronto Star story from earlier this year on renovictions.
Kyle
at 1:51 pm
The rules vs the reality are two very different things. Metcap, Minto, Akelius, Timbercreek, etc have collectively transformed Parkdale. Anyone who walks down Jameson Ave today and compares it to 5 years ago, can attest that it is a completely different street.
What used to be affordable housing has basically become luxury rental units. Every building has been majorly upgraded and the rents are approaching the rents of condos.
https://www.akelius-properties.ca/apartments/on/toronto/188-jameson-avenue/floorplans.aspx
Why build more units, when you can up the rents on existing units, for a much smaller investment?
Chris
at 2:11 pm
Well of course a newly renovated luxury unit is going to command a premium when compared to an older dilapidated unit, if both are placed on the market for rent by a new tenant.
But this discussion was on the topic of renovictions, whereby existing tenants are evicted for the purposes of renovation, the property is improved, and subsequently a higher rent is demanded.
The LTB clearly states that existing tenants are to be given first right of refusal, at their previous rent amount. It also dictates that simply improving the property (i.e. unnecessary repairs, such as to make a unit more luxurious) are ineligible capital expenditures, that would not permit an above guideline increase in rent.
You are correct, in that rules and reality do not necessarily equate. The reality is presumably that many renters do not know their rights, or do not wish to deal with the inconvenience, and thus simply move on when they are asked to vacate for a renovation. But the rules are fairly straightforward on the topic; any tenant choosing to fight a renoviction or substantial rent increase would likely be on solid legal footing.
Kyle
at 5:37 pm
If you are arguing what the black and white rules are or what the definition of renovict then go ahead fill your boots, but that’s not my point.
My point is that the policy has accelerated to the lack of affordability by changing the landlord business model from one that favoured stable long term clients, where revenue was increased by increasing units, to one that favours short term tenants where revenue is increased by turn over and targeting new higher paying tenants.
And the way they achieve this is basically through a campaign of ratcheting up rents via improvements. Again using Jameson Ave as an example, just about every Apartment building has replaced the glass on their balconies and refurbished their lobbies, which they’ve successfully argued on the basis of safety and security were necessary improvements. This gets transferred back to the tenants in the form of AGIs, and gradually people get priced out. And as they leave, each unit is refurbished and relisted at much much higher rents. Perhaps this isn’t the classic definition of renoviction, but that’s besides the point.
Chris
at 6:58 pm
No arguing required, LTB rules are written out in clear language for all to read.
I would agree with you that the current rent control regime would logically incentivize shorter term tenants, so that rents can be raised unhindered between lessees.
The policy presumably makes it more affordable for current tenants (who don’t plan to move) at the expense of future tenants.
However, I don’t really perceive an epidemic of renovictions in Toronto, akin to Vancouver. The LTB has fairly stringent criteria, and even if an AGI is granted, I am doubtful they would permit an astronomical increase. But that could just be me; perhaps it is a big problem and I’m simply not hearing about it.
As we discussed previously, my hunch would be to believe you that it will lead to decreased development, but I will wait to see the numbers of starts and completions over the coming years before I form a conclusion. Yet this seems to be a different topic from renovictions.
Daniel
at 9:26 am
Since the topic today is the role of government this is noteworthy;
https://www.thestar.com/news/toronto-election/2018/09/10/superior-court-judge-strikes-down-legislation-cutting-the-size-of-toronto-city-council.html
Housing Bear
at 9:58 am
Millenials (which I guess I’m technically apart of) are the most entittled generation of all time. I blame a lot of what’s going on today (cries for socialism) on the student loan disaster (another great government move – loans for everyone) which has set so many people up for failure or a much slower rout to prosperity. When everyone can get a loan for school, tuitions go up, schools start offering more and more obscure degrees and the relative value of each degree goes down. We will then let you double down on a bad decision by getting a master’s degree in a useless subject. Congrats you have 100k in debt as a mid 20 year old with a 30-50k salary. Want to stay out of town for school? Here’s more debt! A degree is not really necessary for the bulk of jobs out there. Usually it’s all about leaning on the job and having someone more experienced as a mentor.
That’s my rant now back to housing as a right. I believe housing should be provided up to the point that you don’t have to sleep on the streets and enough is provided to you so that you have a chance to climb the ladder. Being able to clean your clothes for a better job interview type of thing. Student dorm room could satisfy this. Another reason to shut a bunch of stupid university programs down.
Remember folks, if everyone gets a free house or condo, better come up with a new plan to fund your retirement.
And besides, market is going to crash anyway.
Housing Bear
at 10:02 am
And yes I’m also against the CMHC. Socialize the risk of housing default on tax payers to help people get into a home faster – results- more demand, higher prices, moral hazard with bank lending, more demand and even higher prices. Policy ment to help the middle class helps in the short term. Sets us all back over the long term
Izzy Bedibida
at 10:40 am
Good point on CHMC. Immigrant parents bought their house , in the late ’60’s under a very similar program. One monthly payment which included all property taxes for 25 yrs and the house would be theirs. Everyone in their circle all took advantage of the program to get onto the property ladder. Mom laments the loss of the program as she feels the program helped her and everyone in their circle get a foothold in the property market, without having to become house poor and live paycheck to paycheck just to make mortgage payment and have nothing left over for saving and investing.
Mind you one salary was able to cover their costs back then, and still have money left over to save an invest for retirement. It was having the security that after 25 yrs the house was theirs.
Unfortunately, there is no well thought out strategy after the program was scrapped in the 1970’s.
Condodweller
at 11:12 am
Seriously David, you drop this on us on a Monday morning?! I think you are going to need to do a follow up on this on a Friday to allow time for a proper discussion. This topic is so deep we can discuss it for weeks. I predict this may be a top contender for the year.
Suffice to say I don’t have the time to properly address this now, however, I invite your readers to ponder this:
Where I come from, the government did not allow homelessness and provided all the basic necessities called for by Maslow; it’s called jail.
Libertarian
at 12:20 pm
A few quick observations:
1) Our society is obsessed with home ownership and renting is looked down upon in terms of living conditions.
2) Our society is obsessed with “keeping up with the Joneses”. Everyone wants the detached house, with large front and back yards, picket fence, two-car garage, 4 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, etc.
3) Most people wants those houses as close to downtown as possible.
4) JFK has the famous speech, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” It’s the complete opposite these days. Gov’ts used to have wars that occupied their attention, but ever since those wars ended, the gov’t has shifted to social programs.
5) Parenting has changed to tell every child that they’re a snowflake and are entitled to whatever their heart desires.
You combine all of those things and it creates the perfect storm that we’re a spoiled society. I agree 100% with David that most people these days are takers rather than givers. I’ve been saying this for at least 10 years, and it keeps getting worse.
TOPlanner
at 2:03 pm
I agree – housing should be a basic human right; home-ownership should not.
For those who don’t see the moral argument, there is also an economic argument: a lot of research has been done showing it is less expensive to house people than it is to pay for the various expenses associated with a homeless population, i.e. emergency shelters, emergency room care, and jail ($$$).
Here’s a study from 2016: https://news.unm.edu/news/unm-research-reveals-big-benefits-to-housing-homeless-population
Izzy Bedibida
at 2:40 pm
An addition to the economic argument, would be that home owners/renters do not spend all of their income on mortgages, rent etc with none left to spend on local businesses and services etc., thus helping to sustain not curtail economic activity because housing eats up too much uncome.
Cyber
at 8:03 pm
This is an excellent point, and I wish we had more support (from both sides of political spectrum) for evidence based and not rhetoric based policy.
Perfect example is the state of Utah – a Republican stronghold whose Housing First program has had great success in decreasing chronic homelessness and saving the state money on emergency healthcare and justice system.
However, beyond these vulnerable populations, looking at affordable housing policy for “average Joe” really comes down to a few options with various track records of success and likely levels of support among politically active taxpayers:
(a) Rent control, which hasn’t really worked in North American context, and has even exasperated the problems in many instances; generally unfair to burden private property owners with the cost of social policy and would cause new supply to drop
(b) Large government capital programs (e.g. Singapore model), for which there is limited political will, except maybe at federal level, due to significant tax raises or additional debt required
(c) Private sector delivery in “boom cities” (e.g. NYC model of extra height/density in exchange for 20-30% of units being reserved as 20-30% below market rent for 20 years)
(d) Improved welfare programs that provide ongoing rent-geared-to-income rent subsidies at market rent units
Agreed that standard for shelter right cannot possibly equate to a new condo downtown or a semi in Riverdale…
Boris
at 3:26 pm
Nope. because it violates property rights. And government is the worst arbiter of anything.
You can find a nice place in Thunder Bay for $300-400k. No one has a right to housing , never mind one of the most expensive areas in North America (GTA).
Anon
at 3:26 pm
Justin Trudeau likely sheds a single tear for every homeless person in Canada, especially when the Canadian Press has an experienced photographer pointing a lens in the right direction. But what he fails to realize is that the homeless aren’t necessarily homeless because of a lack of affordability or an under supply of housing. Many homeless people suffer from mental illness and addiction. To give every homeless person a bed on which to sleep fails to address or even acknowledge the underlying root causes. And once the homeless have roofs over their heads, what social programs are in place to keep them on the straight and narrow? To help clean them up and get them back into the workforce?
Parkhurst.Bessborough
at 9:02 pm
Could not have said it better myself, David. Kudos for having the guts to write so honestly.
steve
at 5:16 pm
Are we now at the point where onlookers are cheering for the real estate market to implode?
You should visit Garth Turner’s web site and see the hate first hand!
Alex
at 9:00 pm
Ontario and Toronto governments should stop charging those outrageous taxes and fees on new build and changing hands condos and houses if housing is right. May be it is not bad idea. At the moment they are milking the cow and want to move all risks to landlords/owners. Who in their right mind want to invest in rental building/condo/house if rules are changing every few years? The rental supply is certainly not adequate because of those policies and going to be even worse in future if the policies are not going to be changed. Just want to remind everyone with social justice slogans that communism did not work out.
Keith
at 11:04 pm
My inlaws arrived in Vancouver from Portugal in 1967 with six children, no education, didn’t speak English. My father in law went to work in a sawmill, my mother in law went to work in a hotel as a chambermaid. Union gigs. They bought a house in 1968, for 13,000 and paid off the mortgage in three years.
Yes, those days are gone. What has replaced them, after fifty years in which the economy has grown substantially is not fair for working people.
There are solutions to the housing crisis, but it involves making at least 30% of the housing publicly owned at non market rents. That cuts out too much profit for the developers to happen. It’s a matter of choices for society, but we would rather squabble than create proven solutions.
Cindy
at 1:24 pm
Totally agree that housing should technically be a right but the details of what constitutes as appropriate housing should be carefully laid out as alot of people will try to take advantage of the initiatives. I think it can happen, I just don’t feel like it’s going to happen soon. And i mean within the next 5 years. Not to mention, the current subsidizing houses are a nightmare. Not because of the areas but because of the wait times and backlog on paperwork and filings. It could take years for someone to be approved and find a space, while in the mean time they are struggling and possibly digging a deeper hole into their financial situations to provide for the family. Maybe we should look into fixing that first.
https://about.me/RoyalLepageInfinityRealty