Friday free-for-all
Here’s your open topic for Friday May 11th -
- The ongoing saga of CB Developments
- Island construction hits 30 year high
- Spain fights speculation and fraud
Post your news, links and thoughts on our crazy real estate market here!
RSS 2.0 comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
May 16th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Tenants can be forced to move when real estate prices go up. This can be devastating for families with children that suddenly can’t rent again for a similar price in the same area.
Those tenants with pets, even a well-trained cat or little dog, are restricted to about 10-20% of the rental supply and can pay huge penalties in extra rent or pet deposits. Pets are not really a luxury, they are family. Many landlords have a knee-jerk “no pets” policy based on following the crowd. Truth of the matters is many of the better, more stable tenants out there have pets and barring these tenants isn’t smart business for most landlords. Its just ignorant foolishness to use pet ownership as an indicator of a potential bad tenant.
With the new tenancy laws, it would be foolish for any tenant to write off their damage deposit. If a landlord doesn’t return a damage deposit within (IIRC) 15 days after the end of tenancy, and hasn’t made an application to keep it, the amount that has to be returned to a tenant doubles.
In my case, I would get back $1000 instead of $500. Also, my landlord foolishly neglected to do an opening inspection even though I asked about it. He has no grounds based on the condition of the apartment. Truth is, he’s lucky as I’ve actually improved the unit by installing towel racks (there were none), remounting the bathroom mirror which fell on my Mom, and putting face-plates on the electrical outlets. But I could start a grow-up and he still probably couldn’t keep the deposit.
I’m kinds hoping my landlord tries to keep my damage deposit when the times comes because I know he doesn’t know the law, and I would have my extra $500.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:25 am
There also seems to be an attitude that landlords have the upperhand. I don’t get it. Any recent buyer is paying more for the mortgage than you’re paying for rent – if prices go down you benifit by moving, but if you bought your still paying the same amount each month.
Not only that, but if you count your 1/2 month damage deposit as gone you can do whatever you want and someone else pays for it. Dance on the soft wood floors in high heels? burn candles on the carpet? paint the fridge pink?
And if you’re in a secondary house suite and you run into problems you usually have the upper hand of reporting the landlord to the CCRA, because how many of them are paying tax on that rental unit?
May 14th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Seems like a lot of talk is on the rising rents. The interesting fact is, a lot of the upward pressure for rent come from previously poor young people and recent immigrants. The employment market for unskilled labour is great, and wages for anything construction related are going up faster than inflation. We’re hearing a lot of whines, but Vancouverites generally whine a lot.
Back in the 90’s and early 2000’s, I saw a lot of my friends struggle to find employment, as they are not academically gifted. I was quite annoyed with the social welfare system of BC, as it didn’t help hardworking young people. The current RE bubble helps them find employment, and provides a career break for many of them. The downside is the rising rent. My landlord raised rent by 20% after we moved out, but it was still 50% cheaper than owning. Wages in my chosen field have remained stagnant, unfortunately. Ahh, the wonders of imperfect capitalism.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Ok Grant, you forced me to make a decision of cataclysmic proportions.
Your well thought out argument compels me to refrain from further commenting on this subject until the next time.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:20 am
tulip-Mania2, please let us know when you’ve purchased a home in vancouver, upgraded the windows/appliances/bathroom, and rented it to this lady for her target price of under $1,900.
Til then, you’re in no position to criticize landlords who choose to rent their properties for whatever other tenants are willing to pay.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
“Come now, I would expect better from you than the above. Talk about a bogus choice. On what planet do those alternatives exist?”
One thing at a time. I am isolating the issues. I never claimed those to be real life alternatives.
IF that was the choice, which would you prefer?
In your list of choices, I would pick option A. To return the favour, I don’t think your choices are representative of real world choices.
“if in the 90s demand outstripped supply growth by a factor of 2, would it be crazy put in place regulation which reduce upward price pressures in the short-term,
“
1. Who is to determine when such intervention should be applied. The vast majority don’t think that the market is mispriced, else they wouldn’t let prices get out of line in the first place. Government economists? They created this mess? Us blogging bears see the obvious that his is a monster of a bubble, but who else? Who is going to hand us the regulatory levers to kill it? And if we can’t get consensus that it is a bubble NOW that it is monstrous, how would you identify it early on?
2. On that topic, hindsight is 20-20. Not so obvious real-time.
3. The market becomes inefficient from time to time, but I still have more faith in the aggregate market than some committee/tribunal/thinktank when it comes to pricing.
“The small-detail mechanics of free-markets are just as important as the pompous propositions regarding their efficiency.”
So arguments for free markets are “pompous”, then what are calls for regulation? Righteous? And why is one line of thought dogma, but not the other?
“Heck, why bother with elections when we can just run ourselves with a committee of bond traders…….”
No, the bond traders don’t make policy decisions, they just judge them. You missed the point.
“They also remain to be among of the poorest countries on the planet. Micro loans do not seem good at generating macro results. “
That is some pretty f*cked up logic you’re throwing out there. You could say the same about any thirld world assistance. Microcredit programs are focused on poor countries. Did you expect them to have joined the G8 by now?
1. Per dollar spent, it is better than the alternative. You prefer UN style dependency creating, or underutitlized mega infrastructure programs.
2. It has still only occured on a relatively small scale.
“But,hey they sound great ideologically.
“
It is a conspiracy, man. Neocons the whole bunch of them. What the third world needs are strong unions.
“Except the world isn’t, in fact, “honest”.”
And would the fact that capital isn’t free have anything to do with that? You’re right though. Screw the market system. We need a tribunals to keep it honest. Screw Orwell too.
“We only have capital movement while most of the world’s labor population is artifically held back behind arbitrary borders”
As I said, capital is not free. If it was, it could come to labour if labour didn’t come to it. Call capital what you want, it sees people as a resource, and doesn’t discriminate when it comes to utilizing it. To me, that is actually a positive thing. You probably only think of robber barons and Nike sweatshops.
“And it’s really, really great for the oligarchs in charge of those arbitrarily-defined holding pens we call “developing nations”.
Again, capital isn’t free flowing. If it was, there would be fewer oligarchs around.
May 13th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Edmonton? Have you been watching any RE in that area?
The grass is always greener…
May 13th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
northgrl i’m in the same boat… I’m going to edmonton this week to check it out. I’m set on leaving this place and going to a city in which I won’t have to slave away for the next 30 years just to afford to buy a decent place to live. While it sucks to move away from family and friends, I’d rather be financially secure in 10 years rather than struggling to make ends meet.
May 13th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Can anyone explain to me why someone in the U.S. can get a mortgage where the interest rate is fixed for 30 years, but in Canada, it seems that about 10 years is the longest fixed interest rate term?
Both countries have 30 year bonds, I don’t know why our banks don’t offer 30 year fixed rate mortgages.
May 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
“Another option for those unable to afford decent rentals may be to look into co-op housing. It doesn’t necessarily have to be only for those with large families.”
That’s what we did. I’ve mentioned before that we sold in 2004 (family of 4 outgrew 875 sq.ft.), but were not willing to burden ourselves with a mega mortgage for 40 yrs.
We now pay rent that is less than half of what it would cost to own. Our rent only goes up enough to cover maintenance and taxes, and we have no risk of being kicked out because the landlord wants to sell.
IMHO, it is the best way to rent if that is your choice. I don’t know why there aren’t more co-op situations.
May 13th, 2007 at 11:45 am
In a nutshell, what we have is an economic system much like a poker game.
What I object to is the dealer (government) gets to see what cards the players have, and change the rules to favour some of the players.
I am not against the game; I am against the changing of the rules to favour some over others.
I also don’t mind the money taken away from me for an equitable redistribution of wealth, but what bothers me, is why is the redistribution called Welfare when given to a poor person, and something else when given to the Olympic committee?
May 13th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Another option for those unable to afford decent rentals may be to look into co-op housing. It doesn’t necessarily have to be only for those with large families.
May 13th, 2007 at 10:07 am
I think that if the wages are not supporting a human being to have a decent housing that they will not get sick in and can stay healthy mentally and physically in, then it is time to leave this city.
My plan is to leave Vancouver, lower mainland as soon as I am finished with my training. I am the dream citizen: I am healthy, smart, non drinker/smoker, I am not corrupted or in debt, but Vancouver is not measuing up. I have standards.
I think more young people here should do the same. If this city have nothing to offer, then use your free market thinking and let Vancouver belong to the 2% club, specuvestors and off shore investors. I bet they will love each others company. Us younger cows should move on to greener pastures,let the old alpha bull keep brauing about how great his hill is. However, for the rest of us, Vancouver is already “taken”, chewed up and depleted.
Or simply stated: Yes I like chocolate, but I wont pay $100 for it. I like my $100 more than the chocolate. So the seller can keep his chocolate and I keep my $100. I have to congratulate myself on an excellent business deal.
A comment on the comments: To say that proper housing is different issue than healthcare is wrong. The two are closely related. If you are to be healthy, you need proper housing. If you dont believe that, why dont you try living in a mouldy dark basement for a couple of years. Noo, no weekend breaks at you mom’s mansion ty.
Ciao!
May 13th, 2007 at 9:32 am
…it is the free movement of capital that keeps the world (government, businesses and individuals) honest…
Except the world isn’t, in fact, “honest”.
Freedom of capital movement coupled with freedom of labor movement would help – a lot – but that isn’t what we have. We only have capital movement while most of the world’s labor population is artifically held back behind arbitrary borders.
The current situation is more accurately described as global-scale feudalism. Which is great for us, locally, since we’re a lot nearer the top of the food chain than than the bottom.
And it’s really, really great for the oligarchs in charge of those arbitrarily-defined holding pens we call “developing nations”.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Should basic housing, health care, and education go to the highest bidder?
Tulip, somewhere in Malaysia a 7 year old just finished her 12 hour shift at Nike and is asking herself the same question about you.
And me.
And everybody else living in this incredibly lucky country.
We’re all acting out “warren” beliefs, when it comes down to it.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:03 am
“You see, if governments muck things up, capital flees QUICKLY (if it can) and consequences are immediate, a very effective deterrant.”
So, basically it is ideal if a democratically elected government does something the money markets do not like, the market exercises an effective veto power through capital flight. Heck, why bother with elections when we can just run ourselves with a committee of bond traders…….
One comment really rankles me…
Microloans
The two countries with the most successful micro credit programs are Bangladesh and Bolivia. These two countries have had these sorts of programs in place for the last couple of decades. They also remain to be among of the poorest countries on the planet. Micro loans do not seem good at generating macro results. But,hey they sound great ideologically.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:51 am
I think there is a lot of talk about the wonders of free markets and the principles of optimal allocation of resources.
I believe that, when all adjustments are made, free markets are the most efficient proposition. This is in the long-run though.
Each market works differently. In particular, RE markets have very slow adjustment on the supply side: it may take literally decades for the two sides of the market to be equalized, which can explain the decade long swings we observe.
I have a practical question: is it free market such a dogma that any short term intervention is undesirable?
Example, if in the 90s demand outstripped supply growth by a factor of 2, would it be crazy put in place regulation which reduce upward price pressures in the short-term, rather than waiting 10 years for things to go out of order and then crash?
The small-detail mechanics of free-markets are just as important as the pompous propositions regarding their efficiency. If you want them to work well you’ve got to understand their limits as well…nothing is quite as perfect as we would like to believe!
May 13th, 2007 at 8:04 am
patriotz:
Actually, you’re being too generous claiming that Canada’s current health care is ‘great’, and you’re thus setting up your own ‘false choice’.
One could more accurately describe the current Canadian Health Care system as (adapting your phrasing) “a covert multi-tier system where care ranges from poor to great depending on your social connections, your ability/willingness to pay, and/or your blind luck.”
Those with connections and wealth are already getting better health care here, and with the boomers hitting high-maintenance ages, there is absolutely no way we’ll avoid a freemarket component to our health care system.
One challenge will be maintaining a reasonable quality of care for those who cannot access ‘private’ services.
May 13th, 2007 at 4:39 am
What if you had to choose between:
1. A system with absolute equality that provided mediocre healthcare for everybody
2. A tiered market based system where care ranged from good to great depending on your ability/willingness to pay?
You may not agree, but if those were true alternatives, which one would you pick?
Come now, I would expect better from you than the above. Talk about a bogus choice. On what planet do those alternatives exist?
I could just as well say:
1. A system that provided good healthcare to everyone (i.e. Canada right now).
2. A tiered quasi-market based system where care ranged from poor to great depending on your ability/willingness to pay and/or blind luck, incurred huge overhead costs, cost 50% more, and yielded poorer overall outcomes? (i.e. US right now).
See how easy that was?
As for me, I don’t believe in government subsidies or price controls on any tradable goods or assets. Or tradable services like rents beyond some nominal protection for sitting tenants (like BC right now).
Human services like health care and education are another thing completely.
May 13th, 2007 at 12:17 am
“This rant wasn’t against all landlords. What it correctly pointed is that too many landlords shouldn’t be in the business. If you can’t provide the basics, you have no business renting to people.”
So to paraphrase, the rant wasn’t against high rents, but incompetence of landlords. One would think that competition among landlords would eventually squeeze the bad ones out of the business.
The landlord-tenant relationship is a weird one. In most businesses, the customer is king. Having been on both sides of the fence, I like neither. As a tenant, I thought some landlords to be greedy, arrogant buffoons, and I felt at their mercy, residential tenancy act or not. As a landlord, I felt equally powerless as a*hole tenants quote their “rights” while thrashing my place. What is a half months rent? Doesn’t come close to cover replacedment of burned counter tops, missing fridge drawers, stained carpets, broken toilets, drywall replacement & painting or rekeying of locks.
May 13th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Oh, and I am the farthest thing from a libertarian. I believe in gun control. I have no beef with taxation. I have no problem with welfare, though it should be tweaked to minimize dependence.
And I don’t think many of the social programs we have fly in the face of the free market. Self-interest and altruism need not be mutually exclusive. Sometimes you save money by spending money. If there was no welfare, for example, many desperate people would resort to crime. What I am for, is the idea of accomplishing the most using the least amount of resources. Efficiency in other words. Nothing accomplishes that better than the market system. Want to curtail greenhouse gases? Tax them at the margin. Allow trading of credits. Want to reduce rush hour congestion? Peak hour tolls. Reduce use of fossil fuels? Tax it. And so on.
May 12th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
“Are the free market forces at work in this current housing market, or is, the creation of this bubble, at least in part, a result of a government controlling the money supply and manipulating the inflation figures? “
I would say both. I have said it before, but it has been a while, so I say it again. I read some of Reuven Brenner’s books, and I think I have seen the light: Freedom of capital markets.
He makes a very good case that it is the free movement of capital that keeps the world (government, businesses and individuals) honest. It is THE most important factor in that sense. It is a better indicator than political system (full democracy or dictatorship). You see, if governments muck things up, capital flees QUICKLY (if it can) and consequences are immediate, a very effective deterrant.
He argued that Mexican, Central and South American economic malaise related to lack of free capital markets. Those are not cases of failed capitalism, but feudalism. The ruling classes maintain their grip on power partly by controlling access to credit.
It is sad how this right versus left society has squandered so much opportunity and use misrepresentations to polarize society. The extreme left uses South America as an example of the failure of capitalism. The extreme right uses the Soviet Union as an example of the failure of socialism. I abhor the nationalistic right as much as the extreme left. As mentioned, my heart is with entrepreneurial capitalism. You take the basic formula and match capital with entrepreneurial talent and ambition, and you create value and raise standards of living. This can occur on any scale, the recent notoriety of microcredit being a shining example. But the left is too busy painting free market capitalism as a trough for greedy and corrupt swine. The nationalistic right is busy convincing politicians to enact trade barriers in order to protect unnatural monopolies under the pretense of protecting jobs.
The solution: free capital markets. If there are ultimate bag holders who have exposure AND mobility, we could have avoided many financial disasters. I assure you that the subprime mess in the U.S. never would have happened, at least not to the degree that it did.
May 12th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
LONG LIVE 2010
Welcome to VANCOUVER expensive CAT WALK for all residence and non residence welcome every one enjoy the beauty of Vancouver.Enjoy the 2000 hour per year of SUNSHINE.
don’t realy need a AC.nomasquito’s no bee to disturb breakfast,lunch and dinner.
4lane wide streets over head skytrain and electric buses with wheel chair excess no pollution.2min ambulance,fire and police service just press 911,
24 hour hydro and water supply
enjoy the beauty of heights and downy,the beauty of mountains,parks,beach,and historical places enjoy fireworks at beach yeah
best of the best ladies and gentle mens here is worlds best welcome to VANCOUVER yeah
………………. .. … /? /)
……………….. ..,../? ..//
……………….. …./… ./ /
……………….. ..,/? ..//
……………….. ./… ./ /
…………./??/’ …’/??`?
………./’/…/… ./… …./??\
……..(‘(…?(… ……. ,~/’…’)
………\………. ….. ..\/…./
……….”…\…. ….. . _.?
…………\……. ….. ..(
…………..\….. ….. …UP FOREVER Vancouver touching 1000 mark per sqf.and westside its already touched.Love Vancouver
I am not leaving no matter what it takes.
May 12th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Freako:
I have no desire to defend or be a participant in a command economy; I do in fact detest the monopolization of power in the hands of bureaucrats. And there lies the crux of my discontent.
Let’s look at the truth.
Are the free market forces at work in this current housing market, or is, the creation of this bubble, at least in part, a result of a government controlling the money supply and manipulating the inflation figures?
What about the restriction of land supply?
What about the mega projects, and the Olympics, are those good examples of a market driven economy?
May 12th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Thanks for the discussion, all.
The rental-rant shows how overextended the Vancouver market is. Folks complaining about landlords who are in effect subsidizing their housing costs by 50-70%.
When we recently moved into our latest rented house, we simply paid to upgrade it, partly because I didn’t want to needle the landlord for upgrades. I didn’t want to do anything that’d encourage him to do some math.
At monthlyrent/price ratio of >300, I don’t want him to sell from under us at first opportunity. Shhhhhh….
May 12th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
“Anecdotal evidence suggests a tight, expensive rental market. I don’t know the reasons why..”
Maybe the rents are high because the landlord needs “mortgage helpers” to pay off the humongous mortgage?
“Should basic housing, health care, and education go to the highest bidder? “
Basic housing – check
Health care – well, there’s that false creek clinic, so i’d say that’s work in progress
Education – give it time, we’ll get there
May 12th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
When I go to a restaurant I expect not to get food poisoning. When I buy I car, I expect not get in an accident because its brakes or steering don’t work.
But in Vancouver, you can spend half your money on rent and not have a place that meets basic health and safety standards.
This rant wasn’t against all landlords. What it correctly pointed is that too many landlords shouldn’t be in the business. If you can’t provide the basics, you have no business renting to people.
I am speaking as a former landlord who sold a property when the upkeep went beyond my financial abilities.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Housing is tricky as a market.
it seems to me that extreme deregulation and absolute lack of public provision of basic social housing for non-junkies is a characteristic of Vancouver.
I personally am in favor of free markets and believe that west side houses should go to the highest bidder.
Having said that, it seems that a phenomenon of apartment hoarding is widespread in Vancouver.Some people accumulate housing as they know that a temporary shortage can make them profit big time in the medium term, as supply adjusts. Supply adjustment can take years in this market. Part of their market power is due to lack of publicly provided housing for the poorest: there will always be a demand for shoeboxes and basements, often paid through public grants to single mothers.
Why the government should not step in and provide housing instead of cash? At least for small, basic units in non-fancy areas?
Also, apartment hoarding and flipping is advantageous because of the tax system: if there was a larger transaction cost or higher tax rate on capital appreciation you would observe less speculative hoarding. What’s wrong with regulation for a basic market good, when done properly?
May 12th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
“If you are caring and compassionate, you promote the market system. While not perfect, it is key to raising the ABSOLUTE standard of living for all.”
I agree, as long as people are allowed to fail and go bankrupt as well as succeed. This provides for a “clearing of the decks”, and sets the stage for a stronger recovery after a downturn.
Unfortunately, the gov’t often responds to political pressure and tries to help save every “victim” from poor planning and decision making. This actually makes things worse.
If people are convinced that every time they get into trouble, someone will bail them out, they will continue with the risky behavior.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
tulip,
Thanks to freako for pointing out the positives to our system, and the reality of other “solutions” to market economics.
While I’m not in favor of a wide-open free market as it appears freako is, I really can’t stand it when people think they are entitled to certain standards of living. What you are “entitled to” as a human being in Canada, is whatever the government is willing to give you in the form of welfare and related benefits (GST rebate, child credit, etc). I’m guessing its around $800-$1000 for a single mother.
Here’s my background: I grew up alone with my mother, who didn’t have the world’s greatest jobs, but she worked hard, and rented a place for us to live (in Burnaby). It wasn’t perfect (illegal basement suite), but it was clean and safe. If you believe Sauder’s statistics, real rents have stayed flat or even gone down since then (20 years ago). One thing my mother didn’t do is complain that she couldn’t rent a 3 bedroom house in a good neighbourhood.
This lady ranting on craigslist seems to understand that ownership is expensive now, so she must be able to run the numbers and see that anyone who’s purchased something for rental is losing money every month. Now what, she wants several thousand in renos before she moves in and pays $1000/month?
Reading the ad again it says “we have a child” implying there is another working adult in the family. Any sympathy I had went right out the window.
This type of entitlement argument is right up there with the homeless/poverty types who complain that they can’t live in the downtown core of the best city in Canada. Again I have no sympathy.
I’m far from religious, but “God helps those who help themselves.”
May 12th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
“
Your kind of extreme faith in the free market systems highlights your lack of caring, and compassion as well as ignorance of economics and the fact imperfect markets often create innocent victims.”
The theory I subscribe to has it the other way around. If you are caring and compassionate, you promote the market system. While not perfect, it is key to raising the ABSOLUTE standard of living for all. Don’t visualize Adam Smith as a callous industrialist. He was the farthest from it. Think more a child entirely engrossed and awed by the inner workings of a new toy. By all accounts, Adam was far from priveleged and vain. He was a true academic; dangerously absentminded, intelligent, and very passionate about his work. He saw in the market system a self-guiding machine which served ALL in society. He did not anticipate (much of it occurred after his death) the evils of industrial revolution robber barons. His heart (and mine) lay with entrepreneurial capitalism.
Ayn Rand may have been a little myopic about her economic thought, but I think she was right in the abuses of the Toohey’s of the world. The free market is what keeps corruption down and the world honest. And our “market correcting mechanisms” become the tools of the self-serving and corrupt.
Want to help the third world? Microcredit will give you the most bang for the buck. Building a factory and handing over the keys will line the pockets of kleptocrats.
“
Warren, shame on you. “
No, shame on you, tulip, for wrongly associating a belief in free markets with lack of caring and compassion. Such simplistic talk is dangerous IMHO. Hayek may have been premature, but not too far off the mark.
“Should basic housing, health care, and education go to the highest bidder?”
Your statement presupposes all or nothing.
What if you had to choose between:
1. A system with absolute equality that provided mediocre healthcare for everybody
2. A tiered market based system where care ranged from good to great depending on your ability/willingness to pay?
You may not agree, but if those were true alternatives, which one would you pick?
May 12th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Should basic housing, health care, and education go to the highest bidder?
Housing, an astounding yes. The other two, obviously not.
It’s really bloody easy.
If you can’t afford it here, LEAVE.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
There are plenty of nice clean rentals in Vancouver for under $1900 a month. Just not houses.
single pane windows (did you ever consider that the tenant has to pay for those heating bills?)
Of course the landlord did. That’s why the windows haven’t been upgraded, duh.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Warren, I can’t believe your response to the mother who thinks her child is entitled to a safe a secure home.
I suppose you subscribe to Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory. Too bad for those who fall through the tracks right?
Your kind of extreme faith in the free market systems highlights your lack of caring, and compassion as well as ignorance of economics and the fact imperfect markets often create innocent victims.
Warren, shame on you.
Should basic housing, health care, and education go to the highest bidder?
May 12th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Re: the craigslist rant on landlords.
Anecdotal evidence suggests a tight, expensive rental market. I don’t know the reasons why, but I don’t give any respect to people who seem to think they should be able to live in a great, clean, large place, in a good neighbourhood, for 25% less than what they see advertised.
News flash: Its just not available, what makes you think you are entitled to a price YOU think is fair? Its called market price, get used to it. If landlords don’t get people in to their suites, they’ll lower the price.. trust me.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Hello,
I just got a new site through real estate website design they told me it takes time to gain rankings or even be listed on the search engines. Is that true? Please advise.
Thanks
May 11th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
In 2003, I rented a house on Fraser for pretty cheap. Single pane windows, the wind whistled right through the house. Called Terasen to set up the gas account. Based on the house’s previous history, they estimated the winter heating costs would be ~$600/month. We noticed, as winter was coming, that the furnace basically never shut off. It would run for half an hour, shut off for two minutes, then fire right up again.
Hardware stores sell a window film that you can apply to the inside of windows, and heat-shrink it to the windows so that it’s hardly visible. Worked wonders– our winter heating bills (stove, hot water, and furnace) never went above $135/month that winter (4 of us living in the house). The previous tenants came by one day to pick up their mail– they moved out because of the heating cost. They seemed disappointed that the issue was solved so easily.
There were other problems with the house, which the landlord solved very quickly, after being notified in writing. Not all problems are worth worrying over– we had the opportunity to rent a brand-new house, but it would have cost more, and we were willing to put up with the imperfections of an older house.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I spotted this on Craigslist yesterday and cut-and-pasted it before it was flagged. Without commenting further:
“A question for all landlords
Reply to: hous-328653763@craigslist.org
Date: 2007-05-10, 11:08PM PDT
Questions for landlords:
I am not trying to offend anyone but WHAT’S UP WITH THE HIGH PRICES AND SUB-STANDARD HOUSES/SUITES YOU ARE ALL TRYING TO RENT ???
We really want a home we can feel comfortable in. We have a child and she deserves a nice, clean place to live! So do we!
We have a seen a lot of places over the past 5-6 months (yes, we’ve been searching that long!)
Everything is getting higher priced but is shockingly sub-standard. We now have move by June 1st and we still can’t find anything.
I am starting to get the impression that you landlords are getting GREEDY. You ask for a lot and offer nothing in return! You can’t be serious???
We’ve seen mold in the carpet, black mold in the bathroom tiles, tarps on roofs indicating a leak, dirty stained carpets, 30 year old appliances, 40-60 year old wiring!, exposed wiring, single pane windows (did you ever consider that the tenant has to pay for those heating bills?), rusty filthy bathroom showers and sinks, so much more to describe but ultimately a lot of filth.
As you may well understand, we renters don’t want to waste our time. In our case, we’ve increased our budget over and over but keep coming up against this sub-standard housing.
PLEASE CONSIDER WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO WHEN YOU TRY TO RENT YOUR HOUSE/APARTMENT!
??? WOULD YOU LIVE THERE ?????
Ask yourselves:
1. Is it carpeted or hard-surface? (we find a hard-surface such as laminate, hardwood or tile is much easier to keep clean)
2. How old are the appliances? Old appliances drain energy and are DANGEROUS.
3. When was the last time the homes electrical wiring was worked on (is it original to the house)? (This stuff affects insurance and is also DANGEROUS). Are you willing to risk peoples lives?
4. When was the bathroom updated or worked on? (we’ve had issues with mold in the past and it’s a major health concern) Again, would you live with it? Would you let your kids be around it?
5. Are the windows single pane or updated? Again, an energy drain.
6. Any leaks? leaks lead to mold…can cause asthma, allergies, major illness.
7. rust in very old tubs and sinks – they should be tested for lead if they are chipped and the metal underneath is rusting.
Anyway, my point is that people who rent are not all low-lifes and pot growers who don’t care where they live or want the house just for a grow op.
For example: we don’t want to own in Vancouver, we want to live elswhere but have to live here for now because of work and our baby’s grandparents are here. In the mean time we want a NICE place to live. We don’t want to pay $1900 for a house AND pay another 300-400 a month to heat it.
We don’t want to be sick from the place we live, we want to come home from work and relax with our “healthy” child.
IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO RENOVATE IT, DON’T RENT IT! IF YOU WON’T LIVE THERE BECAUSE IT’S SUB-STANDARD, DON’T EXPECT US TO!!!
(BTW- replacing carpets and painting walls is NOT a reno! It’s replaced carpet and a paint job, that’s IT!)
Good luck to all the renters out there…I feel for you all. I wish we could all boycott this farce. I’m starting to feel like we are all in a bad dream with Pre-Olympic blood-thirsty home owners. Everyone wants a plump piece of their yummy pie, I guess, who cares that others are being exploited.
- a really frustrated mom.”
May 11th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Lumber prices:
http://tinyurl.com/2otpcx
“B.C. lumber and paper producers have been hit by two bad years, but the softwood duty refunds have helped producers weather a downturn that has seen lumber prices hit their lowest levels in 25 years, a new PricewaterhouseCoopers report says”
Latest from Random Lengths:
Downtime:
”
Stuart Lake Lumber, Fort St. James, B.C., will close for an indefinite duration at the end of May due to market conditions, according to media reports. – 5/3/2007 “
“Canfor Corp. has announced plans to take downtime at its Plateau sawmill in Vanderhoof, B.C., due to continuing poor market conditions. “
Current lumber prices: $280 versus $364 a year ago. Prices have been hovering around here for 6 monhts.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I think the earlier stories said that the deposits had already been returned.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Come to think of it, is the deposit for the CB project in a trust, or has it been released to developer? If the deposit has been released, the buyer can end up not getting the homes, and losing the deposit, depending on the wording of the contract. Actually, it’s probably not possible, as long as prices are higher. South of border, a few people got burned in buying presale because they released the deposit to the developer, and the developer went bankrupt, or more likely the scam artists took the money and left the buyers with a shell company.
May 11th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Thinking about this CB project further – the buyers may be out of luck.
The project has run out of money. Why would the bank lend more money to the developer to finish construction if it knows that the developer won’t take in enough on the sales to cover the debt? The bank would be better off to foreclose and sell the half-finished project to another developer who would be fully entitled to list the houses at market prices. The old purchasers would be left holding a construction contract with an insolvent company.
An order for specific performance won’t help as the developer can’t give them what it does not have (clear title).
This is a failed project: the bank as the secured creditor is calling the shots, and the buyers will lose out anyway.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:55 am
yah, everyone is doing it so it must be okay… what a relief!
May 11th, 2007 at 10:34 am
So I see from that bbc link that real estate in spain has gone up 150% in the last decade – its not like we’re the only place to see increased prices.