Topics That I Do Not Want To Discuss! (Cont’d)


9 minute read

September 17, 2021


Just, um, wow.

Really, really insightful discussion on Wednesday’s blog, and some admissions from regular readers that they may have seen the light, or at least, some light.

Comments about the FHSA actually contributing to demand, thereby inflating the price of real estate, are perspectives that I wish certain members of government possessed.

I can’t wait for this election to be over, no matter who wins.  I’m just tired of the bullshit.  There’s nothing truthful out there.  Just a bunch of people vying for office who will say and do anything to get elected.

Let me pick up where I left off on Wednesday…

Topic I Don’t Want To Discuss #4: Banning “Blind Bidding

I did an off-the-record interview with a well-known Toronto reporter earlier this year on the topic of transparency in real estate.

After explaining how all of these ideas are pie-in-the-sky because they’re impossible to implement, oversee, and enforce, he said something that stuck with me:

Don’t let the mechanism get in the way of the desire to fix the problem.

I’m paraphrasing.  He was far more eloquent.

But his point was that if there’s a problem, don’t suggest that attempting to fix it is useless because there are no identifiable paths to doing so.

I told him, “Unless you want to turn control of the real estate market over to the federal government, there’s no way in hell to enforce this.  Just let the government sell all real property in the country and be done with it.”

A lot of people refer to “the government” as the be-all and end-all of problem-solving, and often include the word should.

“The government should really step in,” they say.

“The government needs to act,” they demand.

“The government needs to fix the housing crisis,” they suggest.

“The government should build a portal for the purchase and sale of real estate, and they can track all bids, and ensure it’s done fairly, and blind bidding doesn’t exist.”

O-kay.  I guess.

The question of whether we want the government to control the sale of real estate in this country is the most obvious first query.  But as I explained to this reporter in the spring, short of them doing so, there’s no real solution here.

First of all, there are existing logistical issues as far as existing legislation and jurisdiction are concerned.

Under the Real Estate & Business Broker’s Act, it’s currently illegal to disclose the terms and conditions of a competing offer.  So the idea of banning blind bidding contradicts existing legislation.

Now, real estate legislation also falls under provincial legislation, and the federal government is trying to skirt that by amending the Canadian Criminal Code, which is federal legislation.

But that aside, I don’t believe that the industry makeup allows for the rollout of such legislation and excessive change, simply because I don’t believe the agents are equipped to adapt, nor are the brokerages, and enforcement and oversight would be impossible.

The irony in all this is that what I just wrote above is going to anger a lot of people!  I said that the agents are unable to work within themselves, and if you read between the lines, yes, it’s because I think many agents are completely useless.  But for years and years, the public clamoured for different business models.  Discount brokerages, cash-back brokerages, and everything under the sun.  But it’s these brokerages, and the part-time and half-assed agents that they employ, who are going to be the problem!

On Tuesday, a discount agent faxed an offer to my office.  It was half an offer, or 1/4, if you go by the forms he included.  No name, no contact info, and he didn’t register.  I couldn’t find him on TRREB.  I had to call his brokerage to track him down (switchboard in Sudbury, probably…).  They had no cell phone for him – only email.  His email was a Hotmail address.  I emailed him and got no response.  I paged him through his office and got no response.  We sold the property tonight (I came back to this blog Tuesday night, as you may have guessed), and I never heard from this person at all.  What the hell is that?

That is the service that some buyers covet.  Maybe this agent gives cash-back, who knows.  But how the hell do you get agents like that to abide by sweeping legislation?

Don’t let the mechanism get in the way of the desire to fix the problem.

Good point, I know, I know.

Blaming agents isn’t going to win me any fans in this argument, I know.

But just thinking about the logistics of this is enough to tie me in knots.

Let’s say we have a listing for $499,900 and there are four people that want to make offers.

If the offers are not going to be blind, then who goes first?  Jayden, Kayden, Brayden, or Graydon?

If Graydon submits a bid for $540,000, then Jayden, Kayden, and Brayden, can make their bids knowing what one offer is, provided the listing agent tells them.  So it’s sort of blind, right?

But it was totally blind to Graydon!  Is that fair?

Alright, so unless we’re going to trip over ourselves here, we can all agree that we’re talking about “eliminating blind bidding” after initial bids have been submitted?

Bids come in as follows:

Jayden: $522,000
Kayden: $519,000
Brayden: $551,000
Graydon: $540,000

Now what?

First, we ask, “should ‘the government’ mandate that the agents pick the highest offer and not send anybody back to increase, or ask them if they’d like to?”

I think not.  I think that’s another conversation about “fairness” but it’s naive and only exists in a vacuum, in a utopia.

So the listing agent tells all four bidders what the other bids were.

Now, it’s no longer blind.

Now, all four bidders can bid while seeing with both eyes, and we have eliminated blind bidding!  Yay!

But now what do we do?

Graydon re-submits at $551,001.

Then Brayden re-submits at $551,002.

And this goes on, $1 at a time, for twenty-six days.

Is that the solution?

Okay, okay.  I’m being silly, right?

We simply mandate a minimum bid increase.

But who does that?

“The government,” right?

So minimum bid increments are $1,000.

Now it should only take a week for this to end.

Fine.  Minimum bid increments are $10,000.  Does that make sense?  Yes?  No?  WHO KNOWS!

What about a time limit?  Who decides that?

“The government.”

What about the medium?  How are these offers submitted?  Surely we can’t go back and forth through PDF’s and emails, right?  Even with a minimum bid increment and a time limit, people would have to drop everything for ten hours and sit next to their laptops with DocuSign open.

Okay, so we hire an auctioneer!  Won’t that be fun!  And he’s a government employee, of course, handsomely compensated.  In fact, this is a way to create another 100,000 public sector jobs!

So now an auctioneer shows up, and it’s all done in person.

But what if the buyers can’t make it in person?  What if there’s a worldwide pandemic and we shouldn’t be crowding into a room or onto a lawn?

“Shut up!  Just end blind bidding!” say the masses who don’t want to hear this from me.

But logistically, the idea of transparency is not so simple.  It’s actually exceptionally complicated and unless we’re sitting in front of computers, bidding like eBay, it’s not possible.

So then that’s the solution!  “The government” can design a failproof software, which will be implemented by Marshal Law, and created by a friend of somebody in government who wins the $54 Million bid without sending it out to tender.  Then we can create another 10,000 jobs to oversee the software.

I think what we all want is to eliminate the situation where the buyer with the highest offer is asked, “Do you want to improve,” when he or she is already at the top.  Now, consider that if this buyer says “No,” and the second-highest bidder leapfrogs him, then that first buyer loses.  So this isn’t always done out of greed and evil, but rather necessity.

So then what we want is to eliminate the situation where there were four offers, three of the buyers have their final bids submitted, and the buyer with the highest bid is told by the listing agent, “You need to improve your price or you’re going to lose.”

Fine.  It shouldn’t happen, it’s immoral and should be illegal, so then “ban” that.

But the idea of “banning blind bidding” is something entirely different and it can’t be done with a magic wand and a “POOF” without leaving a house-fire behind.  “Banning blind bidding” is a sound-byte for an election.  It’s voter candy.  Do you really think that Justin Trudeau, who’s been trumpeting this idea, has any idea as to the inner workings of the real estate industry?  Or what the process of selling a home in multiple offers is like?  How much thought went into this election promise?

This is the season where politicians stand up and say anything to get voters on their side.

I’m all in favour of reforming the offer process, but it’s not to be done with one quick-quip at a podium during an election stop.

Murtaza Haider and Stephen Moranis recently wrote this in the Financial Post:

“How To Fix The Blind-Bidding Process In Home Sales Instead Of Banning It Altogether”

They said it best in the very last paragraph:

For bidding to be fair and transparent, provincial legislation must be amended. But the federal government should help initiate an informed stakeholder dialogue without having to amend the Criminal Code to ban blind bidding.

Topic I Don’t Want To Discuss #5: Inflation

Let’s say you’re an averagCanadian.

You’re scrolling on your phone and there are five different headlines.

Which one do you click:

1) “What The Future Of Bond Movies Could Look Like”

2) “Blue Jays Ready For Playoff Push”

3) “Inflation Rate Rises To 4.1%”

4) “Kendall Jenner Discusses How She Found Out About Kylie’s Pregnancy”

5) “Ontario Reports 864 New Coronavirus Cases”

I have to think that a story about inflation is dead-last.

I like talking about inflation but that’s because I’m genuinely interested in economics and because the industry in which I work is affected by the rate of inflation.

But does the average Canadian give a hoot about inflation?

Does the average Canadian even care?

With the rate of inflation in Canada now sitting at a whopping 4.1%, it’s a genuine concern, but a concern that many don’t have.  Simply put, it’s a boring topic and one that many don’t understand.  It’s also unsexy.  And when it comes to election topics, “inflation” isn’t nearly as interesting nor do as many people feel a direct connection as they would if they talked about free dental care.

Inflation is something that affects every single one of us, but since we don’t see a direct connection to it, we often overlook it.

But many of us understand the dangers of inflation, and that, combined with the “head in the sand” mentality of a large percentage of the population, is why it bothers me so much.

We talk ad nausem about rising house prices and yet there are still market bears out there.  So how in the world do we expect house prices to remain the same, let alone decline, with an inflation rate of 4.1%?

And if a property owner saw a 5% year-over-year return on his or her house or condo, would that person factor in that 4.1% rate of inflation?

For those with their money stuffed in their mattress, they are 4.1% poorer than they were last year.

So from here, the natural discussion goes, “Shouldn’t we expect interest rates to rise as a result of inflation?”

Yes, we should.

And if interest rates rise, then housing affordability falls.

Theoretically, at least, prices do too.

But does anybody really think interest rates are going to rise in this economy?

And does anybody really think that housing affordability will fall, and thus prices will too?

There’s so much theory in all of this and when it doesn’t match up with what’s happening in practice, it can be frustrating.

But we’ve seen theory differ from reality before many times.  We used to look at the “ratio of wage growth to housing growth” as a metric that could predict future housing patterns, but the theory, that this ratio increasing means prices will fall, was the complete opposite of what happened in Canada.  It was flawed.  It ignored the redistribution of income from baby-boomers to their children, and even as wages grew at a fractional pace compared to growth in housing prices, those prices continued to rise.

Inflation is on of those topics that I just can’t stomach right now because so few people care and those that do care have absolutely no idea what it means, myself included.  Go ahead, try to predict the future.  Just be sure to come back here in two years for the follow-up…

Topic I Don’t Want To Discuss #6: Municipal Development Charges

You would agree that $750,000 for a condominium is a lot, right?

Sorry, that’s vague.  This could be a 3-bedroom or it could be a 1-bedroom, but let’s just say that to get this condo for a lower price would be nice, right?

So let’s say that in 2019, a pre-construction condominium sold for $750,000.  How much of this do you think goes back to the government for various development charges?

Just guess, please.

Humour me.

A few thousand?

Tens of thousands?

How about $164,500?

Two weeks ago, I read this article in the Financial Post:

“Rising Municipality Charges Stalling Efforts To Develop Green Buildings In Canada”

I’ll freely admit that my take-aways from this article had less to do with green buildings and more to do with development charges in general.

We talk a lot about pre-construction condo prices and how utterly ridiculous they are, but maybe what we don’t talk about often enough is the cost of land, the cost of construction, and the municipal development charges.

You would be absolutely sick if you knew how much money the City of Toronto rakes in from these charges.

From the article:

In Toronto, 22 per cent of the cost of new condominiums goes to government charges, up from 18.7 per cent in 2013. In Brampton and Markham, these charges account for up to 30 per cent of the cost of a new home. At 16.3 per cent, Bradford represents the low end in Ontario.

What that means is that government charges constituted $164,500 of the purchase price of a $750,000 Toronto condo in 2019. The same amount is built into new home purchases in Markham, but on a lesser purchase price of $532,000.

Now consider the HST that the federal government charges on new condominiums, which is built into the purchase price.

Now consider the land transfer tax applied on the purchase which the buyer pays to the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario.

Suddenly, it’s not developers and real estate agents that are “driving up the price of real estate” now is it?

I’ve mentioned in the past, and I have a future blog post in the queue, about a land assembly I completed for a new condominium off Yonge Street that was crushed by a Toronto City Councilor.  If this project is ever revived it will only be because the City was able to squeeze more from the developer.  More fees, more charges, more benefits to the city.  And all that does is drive up the cost for the end-consumer.

The only contrarian argument here is something wild-eyed like, “Developers should just accept less profit,” or perhaps that they should turn just their businesses into non-profits.  But I know you read what I posted above – that $164,500 of a $750,000 pre-construction condo purchase goes to the City of Toronto.  I know you saw that and I know you can’t ignore it.

So the next time you want to lament the cost of housing in this city, perhaps try looking in a new direction…


That’s it for me, folks!

What a week!

I don’t have a topic for Monday yet, so I’m open to suggestions…

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.


  1. Chris

    at 6:23 am

    “But does the average Canadian give a hoot about inflation? Does the average Canadian even care?”

    “In our own pre-election survey, we find that 62% of respondents ranked the cost of living as one of the top 5 issues that will drive their vote this election. This is higher than any other issue and has increased by 7-points since this point of the 2019 federal election campaign.”

    “But does anybody really think interest rates are going to rise in this economy?”

    Yes, eventually, unless you’re suggesting the economy will remain sullen for the foreseeable future.

    Scotiabank’s Derek Holt published a paper the other day entitled “Canada Needs To Tackle Inflation”, where he argues for tightening monetary and fiscal policy.

    In his latest Housing Market Digest, Will Dunning states “Canadian interest rates are now too low relative to economic conditions. It’s time for rates to rise by about a half point”.

    It would be wonderful for already surging equity valuations if interest rates remained low, but given that USA inflation is north of 5%, it’s looking like the Fed will begin tapering soon as well.

    1. Bal

      at 8:22 am

      Chris – for some reason i think they will never increase interest rates…they will always find some excuse not to increase. This has been happening since 2009….

      1. Chris

        at 8:26 am

        “Monetary policy is pulling in the same direction. That is most evident in some emerging markets, such as Brazil and Russia, where central banks have raised interest rates several times this year as food and energy costs have soared. Richer countries are joining their ranks. On August 25th South Korea put interest rates up for the first time since 2018. Norway is likely to follow suit. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand had been expected to raise rates in August, but delayed because of a covid-19 outbreak in the country. Nonetheless, analysts expect it to increase rates twice before the year ends.

        Interest-rate increases in large advanced economies are not on the cards until late next year at the earliest. But the flow of asset purchases is slowly being turned off.”

        1. Bal

          at 9:09 am

          but my concern is despite this much inflation…if they are calling this just transitory and not taking any action ….do you really think if things calm down they will do anything …i meant if inflation go little down …for some reason i think they would be scared to increase rates due to debt level …even if entire world increase interest rates but North America…na na na ????

          1. Chris

            at 9:46 am

            I’m sure they are concerned about raising rates, given how high our collective debt burden is. But, if inflation persists, it’s either raise rates or watch as more and more people become increasingly concerned about the rapidly escalating cost of living.

            Personally, I’m not convinced by the transitory narrative. Some of the inflation we’re seeing is, such as supply chain issues with lumber (which is now ameliorating), but other sources of inflation (e.g. wage increases) are likely to persist.

            As Derek Holt put it:

            “Core inflation increased again…
            …and is not being driven by base effects…
            …and there is more persistence than the transitory bias lets on
            Stimulative monetary and fiscal policies…
            …are driving an inflation tax…
            …that redistributes workers’ earnings to government coffers


            …I still find the BoC has spent far too much time dismissing inflation as base effect driven and transitory after having drastically underestimated inflation in its forecasts over the past year despite knowing the base effect starting points.”


        2. Kramer

          at 9:11 am

          They will increase interest rates eventually… they will have to… but it will have to be small. Think of it this way… the RANGE at which interest rates can be set without destroying the financial system has been tightening and tightening consistently, most notably since the 2008 GFC.

          1. Chris

            at 9:39 am

            Sure, I don’t think anyone realistically thinks we’re going to get back to the interest rates seen in the early 1980s. And I would agree that central banks will likely increase rates in small steps, keeping a close eye on how the economy reacts.

            But, if inflation proves to be less transitory than initially assumed, there will be little choice but to tighten monetary policy.

          2. Kramer

            at 8:08 pm

            ‘80’s… we won’t see ‘90’s or 00’s again either. Not without 40 years of everything going swimmingly.

          3. Kramer

            at 8:10 pm

            i.e. 6%+.
            And ok maybe 20 years of smooth.

          4. Chris

            at 6:50 am

            Overnight rate in the 00’s, ignoring 08-09 when it dropped to 0.25%, fluctuated between 2-5.75%.

            The high end of that range probably isn’t on the cards anytime soon, but 2% is more feasible.

          5. Kramer

            at 12:37 am

            I meant mortgage rates when i said 6% as a ballpark for pre-GFC ‘00’s. Essentially i’m saying mortgage rates won’t go to 6% for a long long time.

          6. Chris

            at 11:09 am

            6% for say a 5Y fixed is unlikely. 3-4% within the foreseeable future seems more possible. But will probably hinge on how inflation and monetary stimulus develop.

          7. Kramer

            at 12:39 pm

            Agreed. Took 10 years after GFC to get 5-year fixed back up to 3.5%’ish… (like for a big bank mortgage with a ‘normal’ borrower)… not sure how it could take less than 10 years to get it back around there after this goddamned mess.

  2. Graham

    at 9:07 am

    “A widely shared view among DC critics is that DCs erode housing affordability by inflating the prices of new and existing housing (Amborski, 2011; Clayton, 2014; Dachis, 2018; Fathers, 2014). This view is based on the assumption that DCs are an excise tax and nothing else, and that housing affordability is about housing prices and nothing more. This approach has two main flaws.

    First, it ignores the fact that the present value of anticipated municipal service benefits (net of corresponding costs) is incorporated into the demand for housing in any given municipality. Second, it equates affordability with house prices, ignoring the rate of housing development and how it is impacted by the value of municipal services. Since housing and municipal service packages are jointly consumed, a better definition of housing affordability would be the degree to which prospective homebuyers find their preferred bundle of housing and municipal services available and supplied at prices they are willing to pay. This definition recognizes that housing affordability depends on the availability of housing and not just housing prices.

    All else being equal, the elimination of DCs would decrease new housing prices and thus increase the rate of housing development. However, all else does not remain equal, for two reasons. First, the non-concurrence externality will arise, meaning user fees and property taxes will increase and municipal service levels will decrease, thereby weakening housing demand and thus reducing the rate of housing development. Second, since any decline in net municipal service benefits adversely impacts existing ratepayers, municipalities will slow or halt housing development approvals, thus further reducing the rate of housing development. The elimination of DCs is therefore almost certain to harm homebuyers in the long run by reducing housing affordability, as measured by housing availability.”

    From the IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance No. 41, 2019.
    Development Charges in Ontario: Is Growth Paying for Growth? By Adam Found.

    Don’t @ me. I need to go to work. 🙂

  3. Edwin

    at 9:47 am

    The answer to blind bidding is VERY simple and nobody ever mentions it. Just publish all losing bids on a property after it is sold (with personal information redacted).

    This will show all buyers what the market truly was, and this information will help all future buyers make their offers in the future on other properties. And if someone grossly overpaid, the market will then know.

    This is all that needs to be done.

    1. Jennifer

      at 12:11 pm

      actually i like this. will be some pissed off buyers but may keep agents honest.

  4. James

    at 9:52 am

    The only solution to lowering development charges is drastically raising property taxes, or allowing road tolls.

    The political system is not set up in a way that makes those options realistic.

    1. Kyle

      at 11:02 am

      I respectfully disagree, that maybe the case if we’re talking about building singles on farmland, where there isn’t infrastructure to begin with, but for the most part Toronto’s water, sewers, roads are in place, and we’re talking about simply connecting up to them.

      Additionally, when you’re replacing the property tax base of 5 lots that previously had bungalows or 2-storey storefronts with the property tax base of 200-300 condos (whom don’t get garbage service) , that should more than cover the additional costs to the City.

      And then finally, also consider that Developers are also paying Section 37 to add Parks and other amenities so that the City doesn’t have to pay for that either.

      IMO, it really is hard to justify Toronto’s DCs, as anything other than a money grab and an intentional blocker against density (i.e. there are no DCs to reduce units or expand SFH, there are only DCs to add new units).

      1. cyber

        at 1:48 pm

        This is blatantly false, municipalities DO NOT MAKE $$$ ON DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. On land transfer tax, definitively.

        But the way development charges are set, is as follows:
        (1) Projecting out population growth in different areas (based on planned land density, macro trends etc.)
        (2) Estimating “infrastructure gap”, i.e. what is needed to service the total future population and where it’s going to be, vs. what is there now, and how much extra is it going to cost to build out or expand (e.g. replace sections of sewers with bigger diameter, expand water treatment plants, etc.)
        (3) Dividing out the extra capex to the projected new dwelling units, based on average household sizes for the dwelling type.

        This is why generally DCs for a comparable property are higher in existing/denser areas or municipalities. But these still don’t have infinite capacity.

        Biggest driver of the cost tends to be water and wastewater servicing, and this is by and large dependent on number of people (toilet flushing, showering etc.) and not so much the square footage.

        If new units don’t fully pay for system expansion / improvement that’s needed in order to accommodate them (as exorbitant as it seems), the burden will fall onto the existing property owners via higher taxes – and that would be inherently unfair and make NIMBYism in the city even worse.

        1. Kyle

          at 1:44 pm

          That’s not what the actual math says. The information is freely available to estimate how much in DC’s Toronto collected, and that can be compared against the City’s 10 yr capital budgets by department. The results show that the City is taking in way more in DC’s then they’re budgeting for.

          Here’s the math:
          In 2020, there were 15,220 condo starts in the City of Toronto, per Stats Can. This doesn’t even include other forms of building were DCs are charged. By applying the lowest DC rates for condos we can figure out the minimum revenue the City collected in DCs for each Department:

          Again this is very conservative, because it assumes all condos are charged the bach/1bdrm rates.

          In each and every single department (except Fire & Civic improvements) the amount collected far exceeds the 2020 amount budgeted. Here are the results in ($,000):
          1. Spadina Subway Extension and Transit: $209,564 in DCs Collected, $116,027 Budgeted
          2. Parks & Rec: $70,831 in DCs Collected, $32,773 Budgeted
          3. Library: $12,434 in DCs Collected, $11,038 Budgeted
          4. Subsidized Housing and Shelters: $43,590 in DCs Collected, $0 Budgeted
          5. Police: $7,366 in DCs Collected, $4,149 Budgeted
          6. Fire: $3,044 in DCs Collected, $8,516 Budgeted
          7. Paramedic: $3,424 in DCs Collected, $2,115 Budgeted
          8. Development-related studies: $3,485 in DCs Collected, $2,916 Budgeted
          9. Civic Improvements: $1,659 in DCs Collected, $11,319 Budgeted
          10. Child care: $5,236 in DCs Collected, $2,321 Budgeted
          11. Pedestrian Infra and Roads: $88,352 in DCs Collected, $31,561 Budgeted
          12. Water: $$32,830 in DCs Collected, $32,525 Budgeted
          13. Sanitary Sewers and Storm Water: $69,053 in DCs Collected, $67,329 Budgeted

  5. Appraiser

    at 11:43 am

    Multiple offers and “blind bidding” are symptoms of a severely supply-constrained real estate market.

    Attacking the symptom without acknowledging the cure is a worthless endeavor. Even if some magical formula outlawing the practice is discovered – it solves nothing on the affordability issue.

  6. Sirgruper

    at 7:28 pm


    Two suggestions for topics one easy and one very intensely numbers driven which you may like.

    Easy – The use or overuse of coming soon signs. I have one on my street for three months now.

    Hard – what has been the true increases in price in Toronto if you exclude renovations. A 1920 semi is gutted to the studs and sells in a year for $800,000 more. A forest hill knock down bought for $4,000,000 is now a new build and sell for $10,000,000. But these all count in prices going up 10% in a year. What about like for like ie take out Reno’s and new builds and trace only unchanged sales and see the relative price increase to the market generally(maintenance being fine). It would be a pain and few would have the patience. Up for the challenge???????

    1. Appraiser

      at 8:22 am

      It’s called the HPI.

      1. Sirgruper

        at 10:11 am

        Appraiser. Thanks. I was not aware of that index but I don’t now that it’s as specific as I was suggesting above but agreed it would give a better like for like analysis. Guess you saved David some effort.

        Is there something more specific? If for example you were looking for like for like price changes unrenovated semi’s in Leslieville/Riverdale is there something that specific? The HPI I see is city wide. Thanks

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

Search Posts