Welcome!
VancouverPeak.com- jesse and Makaya are now friends
- jesse replied to the forum topic Sandbox. in the group Housing Data
- jesse posted an update: CMHC starts, completions and under construction in Vancouver […]
- The Ant started the forum topic BC Population Growth in the group Housing Data
- jesse and The Ant are now friends
- jesse and wreckonomics are now friends
- wreckonomics posted an update: New Year, New HPI. ”Selection Broadens and Demand Eases to […]
- Best place on meth and admin are now friends
- jesse and Best place on meth are now friends
- jesse replied to the forum topic February 2012 Daily Numbers in the group Housing Data
Wordpress theme by Abhishek Tripathi of Mediawick Digital Solutions
May 20th, 2007 at 6:11 am
patriotz:Not once did I ever hear of any IT employer or any prospective employee avoiding the province because of the NDP government.
My lumber to IT example was simply an Oregon reference, whereby they re-invented their economy in the early 90s.
We hear a lot about how Vancouver doesn’t have corporate HQs, high paying jobs, etc. Our geography puts us in a perfect position for this kind of thing, so why not? Why did they all move out and/or settle in Calgary instead of here?
Hint: its not the Chinook winds.
I’m no fan of the BC Liberals, and it almost doesn’t matter what Gordo does, but business came back because of the impression of what his party stands for. They have certainly tried to make friendly with business. Nobody likes corporate handouts, but the sad fact is our competition here is Alberta.
May 20th, 2007 at 6:06 am
rentah:
Don’t confuse being a bear in the current outrageously, laughably, uber-overpriced Vancouver RE market with having a ‘a continual negative outlook’.
Not all bears fall into this camp, but there are some who dismiss any positive news. Just because I don’t believe Rennie’s BS, doesn’t mean I don’t believe the positive news coming out about the prospects of continued economic growth.
Besides, if the economy tanks, as so many bears seem to hope, you’ll be worrying more about your own job than buying a house that has dropped 30% in value.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
My wife and I have a large dog and two cats, but we had no problem finding a place to rent 2 yrs ago.
I called ads which specifically said “no pets” and many times was able to persuade the owner to change their policy by emphasizing that my wife and I were respectable white-collar ‘neat freaks’ (slight exaggeration) who would take far better care of their property than most people without pets (no exaggeration).
That said, I’ve seen many lousy pet owners and would be reluctant to rent a property I owned to all and any pet owners. That said, I wouldn’t rent to anyone with kids for similar reasons.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Not once did I ever hear of any IT employer or any prospective employee avoiding the province because of the NDP government.
At some point in the early 90′s there was much public discussion of making Vancouver into a ‘Silicon Valley North’. It was in all the media for many months. The NDP and their union-labour bedfellows consistently trashed the idea, saying they didn’t want any “high-tech sweatshops” here, and the several large IT companies who were considering setting up shop here soon decided against it.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Mold City,
Grant: so your assumption is …
Scoop answered better than I could!
Patriotz,
If the builder is broke, yes of course the buyer would have to come up with additional money if they want the project to complete.
I agree with you but neither the original buyers no anyone else seems interested in that answer.
May 19th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
“Don’t have to, Freako. Just set the rent to a level that pet owners are willing to pay, but not non-pet owners”
That would segment the market, yes. But it would also limit my market and commit me to this relatively small pet owner group. A niche, I presume. But are pet owners really willing to pay more (as they should). People will do the darndest things when they feel discrimated against.
May 19th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
“Enjoy things while they are going well, don’t keep worrying about the downside is my general thought.
“
From a passive point of view that makes sense. Why worry about things that you cannot control?
But RE exposure (among other things) can be controlled, so I think it is fair to cast a critical eye towards valuation of exposed assets. Just MHO of course.
I have no beef with appreciating our recent economic fortune. However, I see decadent and irresponsible behavior as a result.
“But if you have a continual negative outlook, when would you ever buy?”
Are you talking me, posters here, or bears in general? Whatever is the case, I don’t think you have the data set to conclude continual negative outlook. In my opinion, RE prices have been overvalued since I first posted, and before the numerous bear blogs appeared. Why would I or anybody else change our sentiment when the fundamentals worsen.
Are you concluding that people who draw the line on value and stay out of the market are negative people in general? I don’t think you can conclude that as long as fundamentals are piss poor. If I continually refuse to ride with a drunk drive, does that mean that I have a continual negative outlook in your opinion? Fact is, as soon as the dude sobers up, I’d ride with him. But you wouldn’t know that until the dude sobered up.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
The problem is that you will not be able to advertise separate rates for pet owners, so scrap a (higher rents)
Don’t have to, Freako. Just set the rent to a level that pet owners are willing to pay, but not non-pet owners.
It’s the same as landlords who rent to international students and other high-risk clientele. No explicit segregation of the market – the price does it for you.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Maybe if the NDP wasn’t running things in the 90s we could have had an Oregon-style turn from lumber to IT, but alas we are playing catch up now.
Baloney. I work in IT and the industry did very well in Vancouver in the 90′s. Of course IT did well everywhere, since the dot-com boom was in the late 90′s. But the Glen Clark government actually changed the employment standards act to make it more amenable to high-tech employers (not that I’m a great fan of Clark).
Not once did I ever hear of any IT employer or any prospective employee avoiding the province because of the NDP government.
The fact is that high-tech is virtually unregulated by government and non-union, so the government of the day has little direct impact on the business. However externalities such as education and quality of life do matter.
Rather than playing “catch-up”, in fact IT in Vancouver is in big trouble today because – surprise! – the absurd housing prices make it hard to recruit qualified people, when they can have a house for half the price in Ottawa. Yet another chapter in the hollowing out of the BC economy.
And yes, the Campbell government had it within its power (like all governments) to stop RE speculation, but chose not to. Who needs real businesses when you’re a “real estate city”. Move over, Phoenix.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
warren said:
Enjoy things while they are going well, don’t keep worrying about the downside is my general thought.
…But if you have a continual negative outlook, when would you ever buy?
a. Who says bears aren’t enjoying things?
b. You’ll buy when there is reasonable value, by sound historic metrics.
Don’t confuse being a bear in the current outrageously, laughably, uber-overpriced Vancouver RE market with having a ‘a continual negative outlook’.
I really don’t see how they’re related.
Somebody who is aware of the onset of night ‘all evening’, isn’t a pessimist.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
“The U.S. economy is slowing markedly; inflationary pressures are building; corporate profits are coming down from record levels; and the U.S. housing slump and soaring gasoline prices are bound to take their toll on spending by the overstretched consumer. And if all that isn’t enough to worry about, there’s the Chinese equity bubble, which could explode at any time.â€
since it’s an open topic I want to post a reminder of my staflation revisiting theory
May 19th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
freako: I am not sured if the RTA changed, but when I was last in the landlord business you were stuck with 1/2 months rent.
In fact the RTA did change about 2 years ago, allowing an additional 50% “pet damage deposit”. This was in response to the complaints of pet owners.
If: U.S. housing continues to slow, the U.S. economy goes into recession AND China’s stockmarket and RE takes a hit which slows infrastructure buildout, our economy could be into a world of hurt.
Sure there’s risk, I was just commenting on the consistent negativity of the message. Enjoy things while they are going well, don’t keep worrying about the downside is my general thought.
Recognizing the risks is important, which is why I’m not buying real estate now. But if you have a continual negative outlook, when would you ever buy?
May 19th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
“he (Rennie) said. from article by Ashley Ford, The Province, Friday, May 18, 2007.”
You may recall Ford as the guy who wrote some comically illtimed RE boosting columns on the cusp of bubble burst in 1981.
“Because I can. Pets are typically fine, but they are also a risk.”
That is just the thing. In our quest for perceived equality, we sometimes end up shooting ourselves in the foot. All else the same, pets ARE a risk. As a landlord, I would be open to taking petowners on providing
a) Higher rent
b) Higher deposit
c) High quality tenant.
The problem is that you will not be able to advertise separate rates for pet owners, so scrap a. I am not sured if the RTA changed, but when I was last in the landlord business you were stuck with 1/2 months rent. As for c), I would prefer a high quality tenant with a pet than an as*hole without. But I would also prefer an as*hole without pets to an as*hole with pets, and a great tenant without pets to one with. Conclusion: There is little incentive to accept pets.
“I can’t believe you are pessimistic on the economy. Sorry but its red hot. “
I don’t doubt that our economy is hot, but I think that a good portion of this is due to
1. RE boom (construction, consumption consequent squeeze of resource prices).
2. Asia’s booming economies (squeezing resource prices). I think that to a degree 2 flows from 1. If:
U.S. housing continues to slow, the U.S. economy goes into recession AND China’s stockmarket and RE takes a hit which slows infrastructure buildout, our economy could be into a world of hurt.
Since our RE is marginally affordable at low rates in a hot economy, the downside is enormous.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
patiently:
Since you’re being so honest, let me ask you a question: If you discovered that an otherwise model tenant had sneaked in a small animal that was not causing any problems, would you threaten to evict that tenant?
Well, no, probably not, assuming there was no damage. I’ll do you one better: I moved into my current place with a room mate, and no pets (which was a restriction in the original ad). My room mate left after about 1.5 years and my girlfriend wanted to move in, with her cat and dog. I asked my landlord about it, and he said ok, since I was a good tenant, and I would be leaving if she couldn’t bring her pets.
The issue is that there are so many unknowns when you have an empty place to rent. Everyone has heard the horror stories of certain tenants, so landlords just protect themselves as much as they can.
This same landlord has not increased the rent on me in 3 years, nor have I for good, long term tenants.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Thankfully, the supply of rentals should soon dramatically increase. I know we are seriously thinking about leaving because the rental situation is getting worse, but there is so much new supply being built. We will wait another year to see if things improve significantly. Otherwise, we are probably moving to Ontario where there is cheaper housing, better jobs, and some friends and relatives.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Warren,
I appreciate your honesty. And what you have is a “nice” downtown apartment, the kind of housing that has always been a bit inaccessible to pet owners. What’s bizarre, is NO PETS ads for crappy suites in East Van, Poco, New West and even Surrey. There is no logic to it.
Since you’re being so honest, let me ask you a question: If you discovered that an otherwise model tenant had sneaked in a small animal that was not causing any problems, would you threaten to evict that tenant?
May 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Kind of a herd mentality/group-think that buys into strange urban myths like; this is The Best Place To Live With The Best Weatherâ„¢ and Decent People Do Not Own Pets.
Its still a free market. I’m sure I could increase my rent by $50, allow pets, and get a renter with pets.
Rental markets are interesting, I think it is an example of the laws of supply and demand at its best. Its not like gasoline or automobiles where there are a large number of buyers at the mercy of small amounts of suppliers. The rental market in the GVRD is composed of literally hundreds of thousands of suppliers and buyers.
The reason why there is a tight supply is a topic for another thread, but the fact is that it has been like that for years, and we are seeing the effects.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Warren, although I don’t agree with you, I occasionally find your posts interesting; on the whole balanced and intelligent, but not on this thread.
Care to elaborate? I disagreed with 3 people in a row, so I need some guidance here. I’m just here for some intelligent debate.
May 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
In other words, the pecking order should be: 1. Lenders 2. Pre-sale buyers 3. CB developments
I agree that would be fair and I hope that’s the outcome. But I think that under most presale contracts, the purchaser doesn’t have a property interest until construction is complete. They just have an agreement that they will buy the unit for $x when it’s complete. So if it doesn’t complete, what do they have? I guess we’ll find out in time.
If I remember correctly the deposits were returned with the “cancellation” letters. These probably would have been in trust and would not have been released for the developer to use.
May 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Warren, although I don’t agree with you, I occasionally find your posts interesting; on the whole balanced and intelligent, but not on this thread.
May 19th, 2007 at 11:38 am
> We don’t actually ‘Do’ anything here, we just ‘Be’.
Grow-ops, Film (largely cr*p TV), Porn,…<
As an aside, I hope I wasn’t the only one that saw yesterday’s noon news on global. Seems there’s a TV crew from Boston in town shooting a film about the sheer wonderousness of Vancouver.
Their TV cameras were stolen when they were in a coffee shop. They’re worth about $60K. The producer of the show says they were targetted; it wasn’t a junkie or homeless person that stole the cameras.
I’ll bet an aspiring pornographer would find them to be a real asset, however.
May 19th, 2007 at 11:25 am
>> This extreme anti-pet attitude among landlords is peculiar to Vancouver. If you don’t believe me, browse both the Vancouver and Seattle Craigslists for comparison.< <
Thanks for pointing that out. I checked Seattle and they have pages of listings. Same as San Francisco. Even considering that both cities are larger than Van, there’s something weird about this place.
Kind of a herd mentality/group-think that buys into strange urban myths like; this is The Best Place To Live With The Best Weatherâ„¢ and Decent People Do Not Own Pets.
Silly little city.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Maybe if the NDP wasn’t running things in the 90s we could have had an Oregon-style turn from lumber to IT
Definitely. In a long and varied history of SNAFUs, that was probably the NDP’s single most egregious mistake.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:22 am
the bottom line is things are booming.
I don’t think anyone disagrees, but it’s a question of how long that boom is sustainable and how severe the bust will be.
Look back at the history of booms and busts, and the boom is always at a peak before it busts. Everyone is making money, the economy seems invulnerable, and then the bottom falls out faster than people imagined possible. Bubbles burst because they’re held together by surface tension, with nothing to support them inside.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:17 am
We don’t actually ‘Do’ anything here, we just ‘Be’.
Grow-ops, Film (largely cr*p TV), Porn, Tourism, Selling RE to each other, Importing money…
Pretty soon our entire culture will disappear into it’s own umbilicus.
That’s been the anti-trade, anti-globalization argument in all of North America since the 80s. Somehow we are still here and doing fine.
Ever been to the airport during cruise season? People come by the thousands to take cruises leaving from Vancouver and Victoria. What is so wrong with that? Its FREE MONEY in the form of taxes and boosts to local business. Stop worrying and enjoy it.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:14 am
patiently:
I think the problem is we have so many small-time landlords who don’t really know what they are doing.
I am a “small time landlord” and I’m also a pet owner. I rent a place that allows us to have a cat and dog. But I don’t allow pets (or smoking) in my rental suite. Why? Because I can. Pets are typically fine, but they are also a risk. That being said, I have a nice suite downtown that commands a premium dollar, so any damage deposits could easily be wiped out in pet (or other) damage.
I’ve never had my suite sit empty in the last 4.5 years. If things change, I’ll adapt my policies.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:10 am
No, we had employers like McMillan Bloedel, Bank of BC, Vancouver Stock Exchange, numerous sawmills, etc.
But economic perpetual motion has taken over in the 21st century and the city can now run on RE alone, as Rennie says.
I can’t believe you are pessimistic on the economy. Sorry but its red hot. I don’t want to suggest it should support the last 5 years of double digit RE growth, but the bottom line is things are booming. Anecdotally, my company of 650 employees hired 150 people last year, and revenues grew 30%. These are all university educated jobs in the $55k+ range for people fresh out of school.
Canada will always have a commodity based economy, but there are plenty of room for other things. The Vancouver Sun had an article last week saying there were more openings for IT jobs in the province than ever before.
Maybe if the NDP wasn’t running things in the 90s we could have had an Oregon-style turn from lumber to IT, but alas we are playing catch up now.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:03 am
“We are not a financial centre, we are not a head-office city, we are a real-estate city, a resort city and we are an amazing place to live”, he (Rennie) said. from article by Ashley Ford, The Province, Friday, May 18, 2007.
—–
Let’s carefully file this quote, because I think it’s got the potential to be the very most re-quoted bubble-quote once we implode, and in the years ahead.
The article betrays the superficiality of Rennie’s/Vancouver’s current approach to RE.
“Green is the new Lemon-fresh”.
Who cares about substance/fundamentals when you’re selling ideas/’Intellectual property’?
Superficial, and Decadent.
Our city is a ‘real estate city’.
This is the equivalent of saying a car isn’t a means of transport, it’s for ‘driving around in’.
We don’t actually ‘Do’ anything here, we just ‘Be’.
Grow-ops, Film (largely cr*p TV), Porn, Tourism, Selling RE to each other, Importing money…
Pretty soon our entire culture will disappear into it’s own umbilicus.
——-
(above written with curmudgeonly licence)
May 19th, 2007 at 9:31 am
real estate city(vancouver)
we are real estate city in a sense Vancouver is beautiful and tons of amenities on finger tips,
but Vancouver was and still very cheap compare to international market.
May 19th, 2007 at 8:09 am
“Rennie says DTES is a disaster area, but prices are sustainable because we’re running out of land, there’s no inventory, and, after all, Vancouver is a “real estate city”.”
I think Rennie forgets that the demand isn’t all about loving this city so much that people must buy. It is as much, if not more, about buying because prices are going up. Once prices stop going up, demand will drop off a cliff. As somebody else mentioned, 2% yield isn’t all that.
In conclusion, we are a real estate city when prices are going up. But then what are we when prices are going down? Welfare state?
May 19th, 2007 at 8:05 am
“It sucks for the buyers, but it probably boils down to a failed business and contracts that can’t be completed. That’s a risk you take when you buy a presale unit. “
I will buy that as long as:
a) The developer doesn’t get a penny profit out of the deal.
b) There is no fraud involved (the developer sucking the money dry through non-armslength transactions that find their into the principals Swiss bank accounts).
In other words, the pecking order should be:
1. Lenders
2. Pre-sale buyers
3. CB developments
It looks to me as if CB took the liberty of swapping places with the buyers. A captain is supposed to go down with his ship. They did the equivalent of pushing women and children out of lifeboats to save themselves.
Now what about the deposits paid to date? Do they sit in trust? Is there any other monies placed in trust? If not, and the situation is very dire, the developer may be able to negotiate a deal where pre-sale buyers will accept cancellation in order to salvage their deposits. Hardly “fair” fair, but builder incompetence IS one of the risks. Builder greed ought not to be.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
So, if according to Rennie, we are not a financial or head office city, where are residents going to get the money to purchase all this high priced inventory?
Doesn’t have to be locals. Bill Gates and the Saudi royal family will buy all the crackshacks and Ground Zero condos and rent them out for 2% yield.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
THUMBS UP TASTE THE THUNDER lala lala lala always coca cola yeah
Rennie says DTES is a disaster area
because most new projects and expensive projects are in west side and downtown and east down town and rennie making penny there not on east side still.
well said rennie you nailed it.we have three diffrent report in sameday.
rennie,cmhc,and td all matches with each other.
cmhc predict 35000 resale and 8% increase.
rennie is little better because he is the one actualy dealing in the field.
cmhc,and td on survey and calculation of source avialabel to them.
… /? /)
……………….. ..,../? ..//
……………….. …./… ./ /
……………….. ..,/? ..//
……………….. ./… ./ /
…………./??/’ …’/??`?
………./’/…/… ./… …./??\ RENNIE has prove his words
……..(‘(…?(… ……. ,~/’…’) and
………\………. ….. ..\/…./ ability that he can make a
……….”…\…. ….. . _.?
…………\……. ….. ..(
…………..\….. ….. …
DIFRENCE thumbs up rennie
May 18th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Rennie should’nt be taken seriously.
His counterpart sociopaths
(Yes, I honestly think these people are sociopaths, they don’t seem stupid enough to believe what they say)
in the USA were saying the same thing, not long ago.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
It sucks for the buyers, but it probably boils down to a failed business and contracts that can’t be completed. That’s a risk you take when you buy a presale unit.
Bingo. More and more ‘can’t-lose’ morons are going to find this out.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
So, if according to Rennie, we are not a financial or head office city, where are residents going to get the money to purchase all this high priced inventory? If we are a resort for the rich and famous, that is fine, but last I checked hotel chambermaids do not pull in the six figure incomes necessary to buy into the condo lifestyle…….
May 18th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
letters of understanding
————————
hey scoop
because it is very hard to estimate what people notice in comment writen by anybody,I want to tell you no body can write down the whole book in one comment.
THIS IS REGARDING CB DEVELOPMENT
you can read all previous article about cb development and collect my comments.
than read this brand post “says”government got krenky on cb development.
you can smell a victory of comment that I have posted.
earlier I have mention this amendment things and buyers edge
now see the base that government put sale on halt.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
My question (hardly disingenuous) is who’s going to pull $50,000 out of their pocket to buy the supplies & pay the trades to make this shell of a home liveable.
The builder contracted to deliver the property for 400K and is obligated to use all its available assets to meet that commitment.
If the builder is broke, yes of course the buyer would have to come up with additional money if they want the project to complete. No one else is a party to the contract.
The $50,000 question is if the builder really did run out of money through misfortune or incompetence, or is just playing a shell game to try to sell to someone else at a higher price. I don’t know the answer, but if the latter it’s an attempt to defraud the buyers.
And IMHO shenanigans like this are just another omen of a pending market collapse.
Was this a real-estate city in 1981?
No, we had employers like McMillan Bloedel, Bank of BC, Vancouver Stock Exchange, numerous sawmills, etc.
But economic perpetual motion has taken over in the 21st century and the city can now run on RE alone, as Rennie says.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I gotta ask this question. And I am asking this as a former landlord. Why are Vancouver landlords so extremely anti-pet?
This extreme anti-pet attitude among landlords is peculiar to Vancouver. If you don’t believe me, browse both the Vancouver and Seattle Craigslists for comparison.
Literally, about 80-90% of Vancouver rentals don’t even allow you to have a cat.
It is not because all apartments are expensively fixed-up. I once saw a listing for a crappy basement suite in freakin’ Queensborough that said NO PETS.
I think the problem is we have so many small-time landlords who don’t really know what they are doing. They just follow the pack and falsely believe pets are an indication of a deadbeat, drug-taking dirtbag.
The way you weed out bad tenants is credit checks, proof of income, references, and personal interviews. It takes a bit of effort, but that is what works.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
http://davidlereahwatch.blogspot.com/
” It was My Publisher’s Fault ”
David Lereah was interviewed by ROBERT SIEGEL of NPR.
ROBERT SIEGEL, host: But to put this in some context, you have been a positive voice for real estate. So much so that a couple of years ago, you published a book in 2005 whose original title was “Are You Missing The Real Estate Boom” …. the subtitle of that book was “Why Home Values and Other Real Estate Investments Will Climb Through the End of the Decade.” What went wrong? Where was the point where you stopped seeing real estate values going up through 2010 and something happening to it instead?
Lereah: Great Question! First the boom was Double Day Random House Word that ..
Seigal: that your publisher, you are telling me
Lereah: .. put on the title. It wasn’t my title unfortunately. So it was a poor choice of titles.
Siegal: You are not the first person with that excuse in this studio.
Lereah: But if you actually read the book. I say the boom is not good, it cannot sustain itself. I actually redefine boom to be a healthy expansion.
Siegal: Well wait a second. But in the cover of the book you said it would be the “golden age’ of real estate.
A most interesting exchange. It is amazing to see the press actually press David Lereah for the his bad relentless cheerleading, his half truths and bad predictions.”
Of course, we don’t have people like this in Canada.
Tick Tock, Tick Tock
May 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
A Real Estate Bull Has a Change of Heart
Once a serious booster for real-estate investment, David Lereah, chief economist of the National Association of Realtors, is now sounding a note of pessism. In 2005, he wrote Are You Missing the Real Estate Boom, which suggested profits would “climb through the end of the decade.” Robert Siegel talks with Lereah.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Re: rental units.
They say the condo boom has added thousands of new suites to the rental market. But city staff note rents in those units is on average 22 per cent higher than the purpose-built equivalent.
Yeah, but they have granite countertops.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Grant: so your assumption is that the people that run CB Developments are financial incompetent?
Can I answer for Grant? If you’ve been reading the stories it’s pretty clear that CB ran out of money due to rising costs and yes, probably mismanagement. The first thing they tried was to pull together their friends and colleagues to form a mortgage investment corporation to inject more cash into the project. But it appears that they have burned through that now too. So now they need to refinance but the bank won’t play along (and why would it) unless it can get access to the increased value of the properties.
It sucks for the buyers, but it probably boils down to a failed business and contracts that can’t be completed. That’s a risk you take when you buy a presale unit.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Grant: so your assumption is that the people that run CB developments are financial incompetent?
May 18th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
That bubble article about edmonton is interesting, I’m suprised to see ‘industry experts’ urging caution in an article.
In the meantime, industry experts urge people to step back and think about whether this is really the time to cruise the MLS listings.
“I’d like to think that people would spend as much time on buying a house as they do on buying a car, but unfortunately it’s not that way,” says Alan Silverstein, a real-estate lawyer who has written books about real-estate buying.
“People should be buying according to the fundamentals — debt ratios and incomes. When you start tinkering with those things, then you have people who are going to be suffering down the road.”
Experts say people who buy property as rush investments are most likely to take a hit if prices fall.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Patriotz, let’s imagine one of these buyers originally agreed to purchase a home for $400,000. And at this point, $400,000 has been spent on land acquisition & construction funded by bank loans.
But the home is incomplete and another $50,000 is required to complete the work!
My question (hardly disingenuous) is who’s going to pull $50,000 out of their pocket to buy the supplies & pay the trades to make this shell of a home liveable.
You say the “buyer” will… so not only are they on the hook for the $400,000 (required to remove the lien from the property) but also another $50,000 on top? They currently don’t seem receptive to a price increase like that.
I agree that CB Developments ought to fulfill their contract if they are able.. but if they’re broke, indignation & legislation alone cannot make nails, paint, & labourers magically appear.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Indeed. Who’s going to pay to complete this project, especially if the NDP has its way and the original prices are enforced?
What? The NDP says parties to contracts should be required to honour them? They’re supporting property rights? What would Lenin think?
And in response to your disingenuous question, the buyers are going to pay to complete the project, like they contracted to do in the first place. Thats why they’re called “buyers”.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:00 am
(re: CB developments article)
“I don’t know how the government can make sure these homes are completed.”
Indeed. Who’s going to pay to complete this project, especially if the NDP has its way and the original prices are enforced?
Not CB Developments (assuming it truly is broke).
Not the banks.
Not the buyers since they’re determined to only pay original price.
I guess that leaves the government. How nice of them! They won’t pay for more subsidized housing for those ungrateful homeless & street addicts in downtown, but heaven forbid regular middle-class suburbanites get thrown out into the street, er, rentals!
May 18th, 2007 at 8:46 am
“We are not a financial centre, we are not a head-office city, we are a real-estate city, a resort city and we are an amazing place to live,”
Was this a real-estate city in 1981?
May 18th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Rennie says DTES is a disaster area, but prices are sustainable because we’re running out of land, there’s no inventory, and, after all, Vancouver is a “real estate city”.
Oh, and note to Al Gore: global warming is not a disaster, it’s a marketing opportunity.