Vision candidate proposes speculator tax
Vision Vancouver mayoral candidate Gregor Robertson has proposed that Vancouver implement a speculator tax to deter condo speculation. In this case speculation is defined by the condo unit being left vacant rather than by flipping or simply taking on more debt than you can handle based on the hope of future gains.
Robertson justifies the need for this tax by referring to the BC Hydro grow-op study that found 18,000 vacant condos in Vancouver, which is equal to half the total number of condos in the Downtown Westend. This number is said not to include units that are part-time occupied as second homes or vacation properties, only units that use no electricity through the year.
The obvious difficulty comes in defining the criteria by which condos would be taxed at the business rate. Taxes on speculation are often based on ‘flipping’ rather than holding an empty condo. How do you determine if a condo truly is empty? Would there be penalties for ‘faking’ occupancy? What are your thoughts on this proposal, would it help or hurt the Vancouver housing market?
RSS 2.0 comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
1
X
Warren Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Too tough to implement certainly, and pretty left-wing, no surprise from Robertson. I’m not of the opinion that speculation “hurts” more than anything else in an free market. Its like you just bought a giant SUV last year and you’re crying about gas prices, “lets tax big oil to death!”, etc.
I’d rather just let the market take its course.
That being said, the Vancouver market could be in the crapper by the time the election comes along, and Robertson could get huge votes based on this. It might turn out to be a great vote getter rather than realistic policy.
2
X
Jordan Lapp Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:08 am
A politically popular, but unenforcable policy.
To avoid the tax, people will just put a TV in their empty suite and either leave it on, or put it on a timer.
3
X
Zaigee Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:21 am
It would be interesting to see how this actually pans out because I believe this position will actually hurt Gregor’s chances.
On the contrary, the way to go about this is to offer a tax break to those who own condos but rent them out. In effect it would be like a kind of home renter’s grant, similar to the home owner’s grant.
4
X
Digi Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:36 am
I don’t see this proposal as very politically unpopular. There can’t be that many Vancouver voters holding or planning on holding vacant condos, most vacant places are likely owned by people from out of town.
The real problem as others have pointed out is the unenforceability of the proposal. A flipping tax is based on sales within a set amount of time which is provable. I don’t see how you can PROVE a condo is vacant without an invasion of privacy.
5
X
-b Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Primary home vs Secondary home vs Rental property
Unoccupied would fall into secondary home and should be taxed accordingly.
Second factor is residency. If you’re not a resident of BC and not renting the property out, then it should also be considered 2nd home and taxed accordingly regardless of the level of occupancy.
6
X
charlie Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:54 am
The problem with the market just taking its course is that everyone but the really savvy get skinned. I’ve been watching the market take its course in the states, and it’s taking out people’s pensions as it goes – I have american family, educated folks in professional careers, and things are looking difficult for them especially coming into “retirement”. They made mistakes – I was the only bear around making squeaking noises – but they believed that it was different this time because that’s what everyone but their Canadian relative from the west coast was saying. And who can trust left coast Canadians a whole generation younger? I couldn’t blame them, really. I watched them go up in the dot com bubble too. The bubble-blowers are the majority in the market, or else there would be no bubble.
The bubble blowing boomers not going to be economic engines for much longer. Their kids are less well positioned than they were to help their now poor parents as they retire, and the wealth of the middle class gets skimmed off the top and concentrated in each bubble.
Market forces are the self-same agents of hysteria and mass delusion that lead to this bubble. The market is a mob.
Although I think the market will self regulate over time, I think it’s also quite possible that the amplitude and severity of the demand/supply swings get big enough that society becomes destabilized – because if people get too vulnerable, they start chucking rocks. If the pendulum in the market swings back during all the boomers retiring and the global climate changing and the heartland producing less yield, then the market may well take social stability down with it.
7
X
Burden of Proof Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:10 am
The tax would deter spectulative activity. Therefore it would put downward pressure on RE prices to the extent that some spectulators are taken out of the demand side of the equation. More affordable real estate is a popular thing and the tax would be a popular policy amoung everyone except speculators.
As for the administration of the tax, it will not be difficult. All RE that is not a primary residence will be taxed unless the homeowner submits a residential tennancy agreement signed by both parties to prove that the home is occupied.
Like the Income Tax Act, the speculator tax will be a self assessment system. Anywone who fails to report an empty condo by the reporting deadline will be subject to penalties of perhaps two to three times the tax otherwise payable. There could be greater penalties for intentional evasion.
No doubt, a tips line will be set up for people to inform on their friends and neighbours. Is it fair that you pay the tax while your buddy flaunts the rules?
Some people will submit a fraudulent agreement but there are allways people who submit fraudulent tax returns. The penalties for them will be very high.
Determination of what is the principal residence that is not subject to tax is easy. It is done in the administration of the Federal Income Tax Act all the time.
If anyone disagrees with their assessment, they can appeal it with ultimate recourse to the courts, as is the case with all taxes.
8
X
Nutty Professor Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I’ve never heard anything so stupid!
When the condos tank, and we all agree that they will, I guess we’ll be giving the speculators tax credits for their loss? Get real!
9
X
jesse Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Property taxes are already higher for non-primary residences. I think Gregor needs to be patient and wait for prices to fall. At that point the “speculator tax” will seem unnecessary compared to some of the capital losses already in the oven. FWIW, I’m sure that’s exactly his plan.
10
X
arbitrage Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Did this mayoral hopeful offer any further detail? Rather than just an empty proposal of a ” tax”?
Personally, I’d rather just have Mr. Market do its work. Speculating carries risk. Taxing speculators when they’re doing well is like taxing good luck.
By the time we’re done defining the whole thing, the only ones making money will be the lawyers.
11
X
arbitrage Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:44 am
The above should say “(insert hated thing here) tax” – i misused the pointy brackets.
12
X
heymike Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Any link to the Hydro study? 18,000 empty units being empty for 12+ months is a lot more than I would have guessed; anyone know when the study took place and/or the definition of “Vancouver”. Given that definition of “Vancouver” it would also be interesting to see what % 18k units equates to.
13
X
blueskies Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
hmmm?
1. politician trying to get elected? check
2. promises are cheap? check
3. ‘nuf said
14
X
Patiently Waiting Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
After reading Burden of Proof’s post, I believe an anti-speculation tax is doable.
By the time Robertson is mayor (I believe he will win), the mood in Vancouver will be even more receptive.
Even in wealthy Westside ‘hoods, people will see abandoned houses with waist-high grass on their streets. Whether it means going after speculators or banks, Robertson will happily take action.
Also, there will be huge stresses for renters because of the Olympics, as people get displaced by greedy landlords and suddenly realize they will have to pay much steeper rents. The pressure will be on to make this empty housing stock available ASAP.
15
X
Re-diculous Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Hey, Comments are on for the Sun article today. Not alot of bullish sentiment there. Why not add your say – I have. Here’s the link again:
http://www.canada.com/vancouve.....0883a29500
16
X
flip this Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I don’t think speculation should be taxed. In the long run bubbles serve an important role: they create cheap and abundant supply of a commodity in question. For example, dot com bubble created excessive and cheap digital fiber capacity, railway bubble of the late nineteenth century helped to create railway infrastructure, and reduced shipping freights. Current overinvestment in the real estate will most likely result in cheaper housing few years down the road. The abundance of a particular “post-bubble” commodity will in the wrong run subsidize other parts of the economy, and is probably cheaper for the society then implementing any kind of tax.
17
X
blueskies Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:10 am
from Van Sun comments:
home owner
Tue, Jun 17, 08 at 01:05 AM
Obviously the 4 of you don’t own a home.
ANOTHER HOMEOWNER
Tue, Jun 17, 08 at 09:45 AM
I agree with HOME OWNER
must be regulars
ditto…
ditto ditto….
18
X
Brittanny Spears Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:10 am
The “next” bubble, anyone have a comment?
19
X
patriotz Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I am 99% certain that this would exceed the powers that Vancouver city is granted under its charter and about 100% certain that Gordo would refuse to change the charter to let the city do it.
But maybe that’s the strategy – bait the Liberals and the NPA into explicitly supporting the RE speculators instead of tacitly as they have been doing.
20
X
Patiently Waiting Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:18 am
“I’d rather just let the market take its course.”
This bubble was not the market taking it course. Government interference actually created this bubble, and government interference will be needed to reverse some of its damage.
21
X
Rob A. Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Downtown Vancouver is a great place to live because of the cafes and resturants. It’s where the action is. So I find it hard to belive that there are 18,000 empty condos in Vancouver.
Can someone provide me with a link to the primary source of this info?
22
X
scoop Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I agree with Burden of Proof that it would not be that tough to implement. Raise residential property taxes and then offer owners a rebate if they rent out their suite. Like most of our taxes, a self-reporting system backed up by audits and stiff penalties (even possible criminal charges) for false reporting or evasion.
But why would the city have a problem with empty units? They use no services, but pay full property taxes. Shouldn’t the city be happy with this?
I do get that empty units decrease the housing supply and put pressure on prices, but I’m not convinced the city will do a better job than the market of sorting that one out.
23
X
blueskies Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Downtown Vancouver is a great place to live because of the cafes and resturants. It’
i heartily agree, YT and CH make for great living. Did you know that there are 181 sushi places in DT Van. I’ve tried 15 so far.
Renting down here is awesome!
24
X
richard Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
“Downtown Vancouver is a great place to live because of the cafes and resturants. It’s where the action is.”
Can you please provide me with a link to the primary source of this info? I find it hard to believe “everybody” wants to spend all their time in cafes and restaurants. In fact, i find it stupid and a waste of money.
25
X
Warren Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Richard,
Are you saying you don’t like eating, drinking and sitting around? I’d be down there right now if I didn’t have to work for a living.
26
X
scoop Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
flip this – I read that article too. A big difference between a housing bubble and the other examples you mention is that with a housing bubble there are many more unwilling market participants that suffer the effects. If tulips go crazy, I can avoid the pain of the bubble bursting by not buying tulips. But I need a place to live.
27
X
Johnny33 Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:52 am
By the time this tax is implemented, the bust will have weeded out most of those empty condos anyways… It’s a good idea but difficult to enforce, perhaps do what some states down south do and tax properties differently if they’re owned by out-of-towners. Or perhaps just tax any investment property, or non-primary residences differently.
28
X
YLTNBoomerang Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Agree with burden of proof, it would not be hard to implement…
What about landlords renting on the low and not declaring the income? Sure, you can’t write off the interest on your mortgage but what if there is little or no mortgage; I have met too many first-time landlords that are pocketing rent without declaring; and they brag about it???
29
X
betamax Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Too difficult/costly to determine/police occupancy.
All they need to do is impose the tax on anyone who buys and sells within a two-year period — that’s how it has been successfully done in Germany, and that’s why Germany hasn’t participated in the world-wide housing bubble.
30
X
ReductiMat Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Shouldn’t the city be happy with this?
scoop, we don’t vote for a city, we vote for a candidate.
I’m all for it. No need for me to go on as Charlie and Patiently Waiting said it best for me.
31
X
scoop Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“Also, there will be huge stresses for renters because of the Olympics, as people get displaced by greedy landlords and suddenly realize they will have to pay much steeper rents.”
Are you suggesting landlords will kick people out to get Olympic renters? Any idea how hard it is to get a tenant out of a place, even if they’re not paying the rent?
Maybe landlords with places that become vacant in late 2009 will hold off on renting to the general public until after the Olympics. But Olympic rents won’t make up for more than a couple months of the place sitting vacant. And if that happened there would be a glut of stock in March 2010.
It’s actually renters who are in the driver’s seat as they can easily vacate and sublet their place for 2 weeks.
32
X
Rob A. Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
“Can you please provide me with a link to the primary source of this info? I find it hard to believe “everybody” wants to spend all their time in cafes and restaurants. In fact, i find it stupid and a waste of money.”
I didn’t say “everybody” wants to do anything. And there is no primary source because it is an OPINION, my opinion.
So does anyone have the primary source for the 18,000 number? Anyone at all?
The closest I could find is this: BC Hydro: 18000 grow-ops suspected.
http://www.canada.com/vancouve.....mp;k=63953
Is it a coincidence that the numbers (18000) are the same?
33
X
richard Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“Are you saying you don’t like eating, drinking and sitting around? I’d be down there right now if I didn’t have to work for a living.”
i’m saying it’s not likely to be the primary reason for “everybody” to choose where to live. like you said, you have to work. some people have to raise families. some people prefer MOUNTAINS!!! the OCEAN!!! the OLYMPICS!!!
deciding to mortage your life away for the sake of COFFEE!!! strikes me as really incredibly silly.
i suppose if one were single and didn’t need much beyond their next shot of caffeine, that might be the life. but even then, picture yourself doing nothing but drinking coffee all day for the rest of your life… well… i mean, even retirees sometimes decide they have too much time on their hands and choose to do something else other than drink coffee.
34
X
richard Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
“I didn’t say “everybody” wants to do anything. And there is no primary source because it is an OPINION, my opinion.”
my point exactly.
35
X
Anti-Pesto Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
The 18K figure came from David Cadman in a COV council meeting, he has been unable to back up the claims after being asked for the source. Yet it continues to be passed along as gospel. No one knows what the acutual figure is.
I find it interesting that anyone would suggest we copy Germany, the country has been on a downward spiral for almost 2 decades now. But lets not let facts get in the way.
Those that say the market will take care of the problem are correct. Government intervention always, I repeat always makes the problem worse. Cough *rent controls* Cough.
36
X
condohype Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
The 18,000 figure comes from housing centre director Cameron Gray in his EcoDensity presentation to city council on April 15, 2008. Here is the quote from his presentation:
As far as I know, we’re still waiting on getting the official confirmation from the city. That said, if it were untrue I’m surprised no one has come forward to challenge it.
I recommend taking a look at Mr. Gray’s presentation. It’s a good read.
37
X
Potato Hat Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I don’t believe the “18000 vacant condos” report is anywhere online. That number first showed up in April when a BC Hyrdro spokesperson mentioned it during a meeting at City Hall about the EcoDensity proposal.
http://communities.canada.com/.....ility.aspx
As far as I know, BC Hydro has never published the report in question.
38
X
Patiently Waiting Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“Are you suggesting landlords will kick people out to get Olympic renters? Any idea how hard it is to get a tenant out of a place, even if they’re not paying the rent?”
Yes, some landlords are going to try to make a killing, but most will fail. Also, many tenants don’t assert their rights. They will get tricked or pressured to leave for a few months.
Example: One guy I know has agreed to leave his apartment around the time of the Olympics at the request of his landlord. He believes his rent is below market and will stay that way when he moves back in. I suggested he stand up for himself, but he says “landlords are like gods in Vancouver”. Sighhhh
39
X
Anonymous Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I think the 18,000 number is out to lunch but that is really beside the point of wither or not this is a good idea. I know it won’t be a popular opinion but this is a free country if someone wants to buy a condo and never even set foot in the place it isn’t my business to tell them otherwise.
40
X
Drachen Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“I think the 18,000 number is out to lunch”
It seems to gibe with other data points. Look at immigration, supply of new units and people/unit ratio. It looks to me like Vancouver has been producing more places for at least 5 years than we have people to fill them.
41
X
Anonymous Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Flipper tax is a great idea. It’s very simply. Just police it like the income tax.
42
X
Rob A. Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Thanks for the info regarding the 18k number.
“that is really beside the point of wither or not this is a good idea”
I agree with you that it is beside the point, but I disagree that a speculation tax is a bad idea.
I think that there should be a tax so more people can enjoy downtown Vancouver, and get into the action here.
43
X
Anonymouse Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
As usual if there’s a problem in BC it’s time for a new tax.
44
X
freako Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I am against it. Interference with market forces is a bad idea.
On a related note, I’d be all for regulations that require CMHC to increase minimum downpayment whenever price/rent multiples go above a certain threshold. That would have kept the situation from getting out of control. CMHC is the real culprit.
45
X
Anonymous Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
The real problems are inflation and the incorrect pricing of risk (cheap money through commoditization and the government nationalizing mortgage risk).
If rates go to where inflation is back under control and risk is correctly repriced, the actual cost of holding a vacant property come to bear and this issue will be moot.
46
X
Drachen Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Rob A.
“I think that there should be a tax so more people can enjoy downtown Vancouver, and get into the action here.”
I thought you were leaving? Didn’t you say a couple of weeks back that you’d had a job offer elsewhere and you were outta here? The only “action” that Downtown has that other parts of Vancouver don’t also have is drug peddling, prostitution, extremely high levels of panhandling.
I live a 20 minute drive from Downtown and yet I have a theatre, many nice restaurants, a wide variety of grocery stores, a dozen or so coffee shops in walking distance. Nearly anything that I could want is within walking distance in fact. Certainly anything you can reasonably claim as an advantage there I also have here.
47
X
Drachen Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Now I know what Krrish does at work all day long.
48
X
jesse Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
“I’d be all for regulations that require CMHC to increase minimum downpayment whenever price/rent multiples go above a certain threshold.”
I’m pretty sure you’ll get your wish in a few years. Note there are private MIs in the market as well, not just CMHC.
49
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I always knew Krish-Krash-brownstain was multi talented.
Can the blog be fixed so that whenever he makes a comment there’s just a link to this clip instead? It would be more entertaining, and at least it would make SOME sense.
The high pitched woman’s voice is like something out of The Exorcist.
50
X
freako Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Note there are private MIs in the market as well, not just CMHC.
Yeah, that is a head scratcher for sure. Why would private money join this tax payer funded race to the bottom?
I always make the point of reading Genworth’s financials and check out their conference calls. So far no alarms or concerns out of Canada. Rather they were pleased with profitability of Canadian operations.
51
X
Matt Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
What if the market forces in question, unconstrained in their freedom, begin to impact the market negatively? Is there or should there be a remedy? While it’s not applicable, I’m thinking of the impetus for competition law.
52
X
Anonymous Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Re: private MIs… The private MIs and monolines in the states are all but extict. Check the charts on MTG, PMI, RDN, ABK, etc.
The US Fed broke the rules backstopping Bear Stearns for JPM to stop its counterparty risk for all the CDS’ they wrote. There is now an expectation for central banks to bail out “too large to fail” institutions. I understand this was in the USA, but what would Ottawa do if something big like CMHC, CDIC, or a bank like RBC or TD failed? There is just too much moral hazard when a Government acts as an underwriter.
53
X
Drachen Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Matt
“What if the market forces in question, unconstrained in their freedom, begin to impact the market negatively?”
Unconstrained corporate freedom could be a bad thing? Never!
Just think of all the things we’d have if the government dropped regulation down to US levels.
Two to three times the healthcare costs. Unexpected illness the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy.
Pharmaceutical companies could charge twice as much, and they’d sped less on that pesky testing!
Phone companies could charge unsuspecting customers hundreds of dollars for a few short intra-continental phone calls.
Wal-Marts could shut their staff in overnight in Canada too!
We could ALL hire an illegal immigrant to be our personal dogsbody. *Cheap!*
Hey we could go to Iraq, rape some women and laugh it off when someone brings up the, “legal repercussions” of our actions. Hell there aren’t even any employment repercussions!
Wow, de-regulation is the way to go!
(*note these are all true stories.)
54
X
Matt Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
What does ‘too much moral hazard’ mean?
In the UK, Northern Rock was nationalised so that thousands of Britons wouldn’t lose their homes. Is it better that those households, while fiscally irresponsible, suffer the consequences of a lending system that has proven itself to be dysfunctional? And what of the economic consequences of foreclosing all these people out of their homes? I should think that the consequences should also be negative for those of us who are careful not to borrow beyond our means.
55
X
Drachen Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I like how one British lawmaker put it when the government bailed out Northern Rock.
“Privatizing the profits and Socializing the losses.”
pretty much sums it up.
56
X
-A- Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
A flipper tax is a stupid idea. Without speculators there would be no bubble, without a bubble there would not be excessive supply and the eventual bursting of the bubble.
No thanks, no speculator tax, no socialist idiot ideas, please dismantle or sell CMHC to investors, and abolish the Agricultural Land Reserve.
Eventually the price will find its equilibrium, and as long as land supply is not artificially restricted, the price will adjust to levels determined by local incomes and population.
57
X
Matt Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
The market is meant to convey information to its participants regarding the availability of resources and the demand for these resources, among other things. Are bubbles natural phenomena that we should protect? Are they beneficial to market participants as a whole?
58
X
Matt Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I forgot to add, ‘do they distort the market’.
59
X
jesse Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“So far no alarms or concerns out of Canada. Rather they were pleased with profitability of Canadian operations.”
There was an article in Business in Vancouver magazine about how financing of high end (commerical) Vancouver properties went from requiring 70-75% LTV in ‘07 to 60-65% LTV now. The global tightening of credit is indeed affecting certain local properties and I’m intrigued how this seems so separate from financing other parts of the local property market.
60
X
Drachen Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
“Are bubbles natural phenomena that we should protect?”
It’s not a beluga whale or a spotted owl.
“Are they beneficial to market participants as a whole?”
No.
61
X
jesse Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“what would Ottawa do if something big like CMHC, CDIC, or a bank like RBC or TD failed?”
I think Ottawa is already seriously reviewing CMHC’s policies but it may be too late. One simple task is to increase insurance premiums. Any bailout will likely come with strings attached.
62
X
-A- Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Matt, yes there will be distortions, and misallocation of resources, rampant speculation and a host of undesirable effects from time to time, however begrudgingly, I would rather be facing this temporary situation which will eventually rebalance and revert to mean, than having central planners meddle and cause even more damage.
Politicians are, for the most part, too lazy and greedy to get real jobs, and too ugly for show business.
63
X
stagnate Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
i assume gregor is just playing politics at this point, if he were serious about playing with the demand side of the equation there will be a significant whiplash on the supply side. as far as i know there is no happy planet magic juice that would convince developers to build affordable housing just because gregor wants it.
64
X
Anonymous Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
re: moral hazard
Have a look at the wikipedia entry for it. It applies to anything bankrolled by the government (i.e. the taxpayer and anyone who hold its currency).
Also keep in mind that government backing exposes the entity to lobbying. e.g. The raising of FNM loan limits to accommodate jumbo loans to $730K, CMHC 40year product, etc.
Northern Rock bankruptcy would not put people out of their homes. Mortgages are contracts and are assets that are sold off. That said, it sounds like they didn’t have federal deposit insurance in the UK since there was a bank run on NR. Northern rocks demise is a bit suspect with drying up of open market credit… especially with JPMorgan in there carving up the carcass. The only real losers in this were the shareholders of Northern Rock and British Tax Payer.
65
X
Anonymous Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Speculators tax against vacancy is good. I don’t wanna live in a ghost town. I wanna live in a neighborhood with good neighbors, not some place devoid of life.
66
X
rocker guy Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
When foreclosures start tying up vacant properties, this proposed rule will really help to motivate sellers (i.e. banks) to liquidate, which will serve a social good by preventing the sort of vacancy crisis in cities like Washington DC.
67
X
rocker guy Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Remove rent increase controls. That will free up units FAST!
68
X
Anonymous Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
How would removing rent increase controls free up units?
Vacant units, by definition, have no tenants. There is no rent to increase from. You can ask for anything you want, but it doesn’t mean you’ll get it. Rents are tied to incomes, and those are slow to change unless we get into a nice wage-price spiral.
69
X
patriotz Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
What about landlords renting on the low and not declaring the income?
Easy solution: renter’s tax credit. Gets renters to declare name of landlord and amount paid on income tax returns. It would make sense from the viewpoint of fairness and economic efficiency too, because the homeowner’s grant currently subsidizes owners at the expense of renters.
“what would Ottawa do if something big like CMHC, CDIC, or a bank like RBC or TD failed?”
First, CMHC and CDIC are Crown corporations and their obligations are unconditionally backed up by the federal government. No ifs, ands, or buts. The feds will do whatever it takes to meet their obligations, and that includes going to the printing press.
As for bank failures, we have had them you know. Three good sized banks failed in the 80’s – Bank of BC, Northland Bank, and CCIB. Bank of BC was taken over by HSBC at no cost to the taxpayer. In the case of the other two, they were liquidated, insured depositors were compensated by CDIC as they are supposed to be, but uninsured depositors were compensated by the Mulroney government. The latter was highly controversial. It just so happens that the banks were based in Alberta. Sort of the Northern Rocks of their time.
In the 90’s BCCI (aka Bank of Crooks and Criminals International) failed and the Chretien government refused to compensate uninsured depositors.
Canada has never seen a failure of a major bank, and I don’t think we will see one fail in the near future. The banks are not exposed to Canadian mortgages – CHMC is. We are in for some rough times, but we’ve been through them before and I don’t think we’re looking at another Great Depression, which as I noted the majors survived.
70
X
Carioca Canuck Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I’d bet you that a good chunk of those 18K non-electric using units belong to passport holding Canadian “immigrants” who don’t spend really much time, if any, in Canada. Remember the $94MM we wasted rescuing 15K “Canadians” from Lebanon a year or so ago ? I am talking about that kind of property owner.
Just a thought, given Vancouver’s cosmopolitan population.
71
X
Carioca Canuck Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Patriotz……
Principal Trust Company also failed……National trust Company was bought up by the BNS before the excrememnt impacted the whirling blades. There were a few other credit unions here in Alberta that also collapsed, and were merged into what is now called First Calgary Credit Union.
72
X
condohype Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Tax policy done properly can be an effective tool to affect change. A well written speculation tax would give greater incentive for suites to be occupied.
73
X
Van Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
passport holding Canadian “immigrants”
The word your looking for is citizens. They have just as much right to a downtown condo as a racist loser like yourself.
74
X
Me2 Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
HAHAHAHA a NDP hack calling for more socialist taxes. I love this. How exactly is the mayor of a city going to propose instating this tax? Is he going to declare Vancouver’s Independence?
His policys are sure to bring real estate prices back down to earth, as no one with money will want to live here.
Supply and Demand really works, take away all demand and prices come down. All hail our savior, no need to drink the kool-aid when you have Happy Juice.
75
X
punface Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Hug a Speculator – they are the reason renting in Vancouver is so cheap (and the reason owning will soon get a whole lot cheaper.) Long term, I hardly see a problem with this process.
And while I can accept that the government should have some limited role in providing social housing, that doesn’t mean upscale housing in the nicest parts of town. As long as there are two bedroom basement suites in Surrey for $600/mo, I find it hard to believe there is any sort of affordability problem in Vancouver.
There is a problem with homeless people – but this is a mental health and drug addiction problem and should be treated as such.
76
X
punface Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Also, is this BC Hydro survey available anywhere. This 18,000 number seems amazingly high – but I am never quite comfortable adding it to my personal list of bubble signs because I’m never sure exactly what area it covers nor how high the number has been historically.
77
X
patriotz Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
In the UK, Northern Rock was nationalised so that thousands of Britons wouldn’t lose their homes.
No it wasn’t. It was nationalized so that thousands of Northern Rock employees in Labour constituencies wouldn’t lose their jobs.
Really people. If the bank that holds the mortgage on your house goes bankrupt, how on earth could that result in you losing your house? That mortgage is always going to belong to someone, be it a bankruptcy trustee, CMHC, CDIC, or a successor bank, and that somebody is going to keep collecting the payments. And if you keep paying you keep your house, as always.
78
X
bdk Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
bubble lad,
click and play http://www.krrish.net/trailers.html
79
X
patriotz Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
As long as there are two bedroom basement suites in Surrey for $600/mo, I find it hard to believe there is any sort of affordability problem in Vancouver.
There is a problem with homeless people – but this is a mental health and drug addiction problem and should be treated as such.
Absolutely right. Rental housing is no less affordable in terms of minimum wage than it ever was.
Homelessness is not a housing economics issue and the “poverty advocates” should stop pretending otherwise and focus on the real problem. Of course this will cost money but it’s not a matter of just putting it in people’s pockets but helping them to become self-sufficient, or providing a supportive living environment if this is not possible.
80
X
casual observer Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
“I’d be all for regulations that require CMHC to increase minimum downpayment whenever price/rent multiples go above a certain threshold. That would have kept the situation from getting out of control. CMHC is the real culprit.”
Not sure if the price/rent multiple idea would fly, but I agree with the principle. The RE bubble may not have been started by CMHC, but they sure did their best to help it along. All they succeeded in doing was to make housing even more unaffordable, with their zero down, 40 year mortgages. It’s like BOC Governor Carney said, all you end up with is higher house prices and everybody having a 40 year mortgage. No benefit, only more debt.
81
X
van-zee Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Let the market punish the speculators, no rescue no relief it’s a big boys game and they can take their lumps as well as the rewards. A petty surcharge will do nothing to improve affordability. I think it’s not a great sign that juiceman is starting out on this foot.
82
X
Rob A. Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
“Drachen Says:
I live a 20 minute drive from Downtown and yet I have a theatre, many nice restaurants, a wide variety of grocery stores, a dozen or so coffee shops in walking distance. Nearly anything that I could want is within walking distance in fact. Certainly anything you can reasonably claim as an advantage there I also have here.”
Oh, yeah!?!?! WOW!!! THANKS FOR THE INFO GUY. I’M REALLY, REALLY, INTERESTED IN YOUR LIFE.
I MEAN, REALLY…ROFL
83
X
patriotz Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
It’s like BOC Governor Carney said, all you end up with is higher house prices and everybody having a 40 year mortgage.
The high prices are only temporary. Zero down and 40 year amort just borrow demand from the future, like all other lessening of restrictions on borrowing.
Prices will revert to fundamentals, and you will get a whole cohort of buyers with negative equity and paying far more in monthly payments than a renter would. For the likely outcomes, look south of the border.
Nobody who can’t put together a down payment of at least 10% has any business buying a costly asset with social externalities such as a house. I’ll make an exception for military veterans, but that’s all.
84
X
Carioca Canuck Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Van Says…..
I don’t know how pointing out that people who own property here, but who do not actually live here per say, can be upsetting to you. It is a possible answer to why there are 18K vacant condos in Vancouver. Not all of them may be owned under these circumstances, but many will undoubtably will be.
The “business investor” class of immigrant “loophole” is available to all to gain immigration entry to Canada. What was the deal again ? Invest $400K in a “business” and get in to Canada ? Open up a sham RE company and buy yourself a condo.
Voila…..one Canadian passport.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with that, provided you live here and contribute to our Canadian society of course. Not run away back to your homeland with our passport, and then take tax payer’s money out of my an dother’s pockets to be rescued when you cannot stand the heat in the kitchen anymore.
Your lack of the ability to form a coherent argument and paraphrase it is not a surprise to me. You managed to use racist and loser in your second sentence. Most raving moonbats who realise that they will lose the argument manage to do that in the first sentence.
85
X
umdesch4 Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Carioca Canuck:
I remember seeing an exposé about this somewhere recently (CBC website?), and just how rampant of a problem it actually is.
Can’t seem to find the link now though…anyone else remember that?
86
X
Drachen Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Rob A.
Did I touch a raw nerve or something? Perhaps your condo isn’t selling for the price you’d hoped to get? In any case why don’t you knock back a few Midol and try to relax.
87
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:05 am
bdk
I feel like my head is going to explode.
I think we’re finally getting to the bottom of the Krrish question. Now if we can just figure out the Rob A enigma (especially the creepy sounding “action” part he seems so obsessed with), then maybe this blog can get back to actually discussing matters of interest.
Maybe Rob A transports himself back and forth from the West End to Toronto in a similar manner to Krrish boulder hopping the mountain rivers in the video…
…this could take a while. Better put on a pot of coffee.
88
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Rob A – a riddle, wrapped up in a mystery, inside…Ratzo Rizzo?
(sorry if you have to cut and paste)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMoXQOmIcgo
89
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:18 am
What am I thinking – that’s Rob A and Krrish on an exciting “action” filled weekend in the West End!
90
X
Van-zee Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Carioca Canuck:
A Government of BC press release seems to state that the number of investors since 2002
nominated for immigration is 350.
http://tinyurl.com/6k2eq8
91
X
Anonymous Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 10:10 am
This problem of vacant properties will fix itself. There is no need to cry foul and get the government and all its inefficiencies into the gears of the market.
The only reason I can think of for a speculator to hold onto a property (and on top of that leave it vacant) is that there is an expectation of significant price appreciation. When the market corrects, as it always does, and price drop or even go back to normal levels of appreciation, the risk/reward for holding onto a vacant property will dissapear and they will either start renting it out or unload it.
There will be the cases of the billionaires of this world not caring about holding onto a few non-performing assets, but I don’t think these are the people who are buying up our 500sqft shoeboxes.
92
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Wow. 18,000 minus 350…the numbers don’t seem to add up. One thing confuses me though: I thought immigration was a Federal responsibility? How can BC as a province approve immigrants? Does that mean they (particularly the skilled trades) have to physically stay in BC or get kicked out of the country if they decide to move to Edmonton for a higher paying job one day?
93
X
Drachen Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Bubble Lad
The provinces can nominate a number of people each year, those people get fast tracked into the immigration system. Usually because they’re wealthy or they have a skill set the province especially wants.
94
X
patriotz Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am
The provinces can nominate people, but once they land they can move anywhere. 1/2 of Quebec immigrants (and they select independents too) move elsewhere. Ditto places like Sask.
95
X
Bubble Lad Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Thanks, that makes more sense (patriotz/drachen).
96
X
jesse Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 11:21 am
“This problem of vacant properties will fix itself.”
Too right. Vacant buildings are at best irrelevant as new construction will fill the demand for “real” buyers. At worst they lead to a massive oversupply.
97
X
Carioca Canuck Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
http://www12.statcan.ca/englis.....couver.cfm
Regardless of who owns what……18K emnpty units is something.
98
X
rentah Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Despite my handle, I’d be against any speculator tax or penalty.
(If we’re talking about attempts at controlling speculation, I would rather have seen prudence exercised regarding the monetary policy and lending conditions that facilitated the bubble in the first place.)
What I’m against even more vehemently, however, is any kind of bail-out whatsoever for any RE owner (speculator or any other sort) who gets into dire straits or just plain loses money when the bubble implodes.
No tax-payer funded bail-out, please.
99
X
Rob A. Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“Drachen Says:
In any case why don’t you knock back a few Midol and try to relax.”
I JUST CAN’T HELP GETTING EXCITED DRACHEN!! HEARING ABOUT YOUR DAILY LIFE, I MEAN, IT’S WHAT WE ALL COME HERE FOR ISN’T IT?!?!? TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD AND WHAT ELSE IS WITHIN WALKNG DISTANCE. CAN YOU GET YOUR NAILS DONE, WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE? WE ARE ALL SITTING ON PINS AND NEEDLES AWAITING YOUR RESPONSE… LOL
100
X
bdk Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
As if Rob A. has ever said anything meaningful except that he works at Starbucks and thinks cafe’s are exciting?
Rob A. you’re a goof
101
X
Burden of Broof Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“rather have seen prudence exercised regarding the monetary policy and lending conditions that facilitated the bubble in the first place.”
If this was a government induced bubble, why should it not be a government induced bust?
Besides, the bust is now a certainty. It is only a quesiton of time. Shouldn’t every bear welcome anything that may hasten it?
We are talking about money here. It is unprofitable to get ideological about “government intervention”. It is all about the $$$money$$$!
Anything that deflates asset values and corresponingly inflates the value of my savings is good. And anyone with a big wad of money in the bank should agree.
102
X
Anonymous Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Don’t hope for too big of a bust. If CMHC goes insolvent, we the taxpayers will be footing the bill through inflation/deficits… in which case your savings are not safe.
It is definitely better not get into the problem in the first place.
103
X
Drachen Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Rob A.
You know it’s really not my fault your condo isn’t selling. I know it’s hard to blame yourself or to acknowledge your mistakes. Perhaps if you just dropped 25% or so off your asking price?
Seriously though *relax* you’re going to wind up committed pretty quickly.
Just repeat after me, “It’s only money. It’s only money. It’s only money.” Ahh who am I kidding, listen if you end up living in a dumpster somewhere let me know and I’ll come by with five bucks and an, “I told you so!” for ya.
104
X
Me2 Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Maybe the bears should wish for a recession too that would lower price. *kokokoko*
Anything that hurts the economy always hurts the little guys the most. Be very careful what you all wish for.
105
X
Strataman Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
“Anything that hurts the economy always hurts the little guys the most. Be very careful what you all wish for.”
Very true of course the little guys would be the FTHB that bought in the last three years, they are going to hurt something awful. Some of them are even EMPLOYED in the real estate or condo building industry! OUCH!
106
X
alexcanuck Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Anything that hurts the economy always hurts the little guys the most. Be very careful what you all wish for
If wishes were horses……
I don’t “wish” a crash to happen. I believe it is going to happen and I have no control over it. Happy talk won’t stop it. All I can do is position myself to survive it as best I can. The time to prevent a crash was BEFORE the boom. I truly do “wish” those with real power had pursued a slower growth policy that wouldn’t have led to this point. This excellent article says it far more eloquently than I ever could.
http://tinyurl.com/6xeyh6
107
X
Anonymous Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Speculator tax is the best thing in the world. This should be implemented in the federal level. Speculative tax shouldn’t apply to principle residence.
108
X
VHB Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
“Anything that hurts the economy always hurts the little guys the most. Be very careful what you all wish for.”
a) You assume we are ‘little guys’
b) You assume that we aren’t ready for what is coming. Um, normally we’re accused of being ready too early. Believe me, we’re ready. Save your pity for overleveraged overmortgaged overconsuming fools.
109
X
blueskies Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Um, normally we’re accused of being ready too early. Believe me, we’re ready. Save your pity for overleveraged overmortgaged overconsuming fools.
the bear faction saw this coming two years ago
very few will be standing around to face the onslaught, as for the “fools” well very Darwinian
you have the quick and the dead…..
110
X
holgs Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Don’t hope for too big of a bust. If CMHC goes insolvent, we the taxpayers will be footing the bill through inflation/deficits… in which case your savings are not safe.
This is actually what I am scared of! In the states, they had MBIA, MGIC, AMBAK, and other idiotic companies insuring mortgage paper (with almost no reserves to back up that insurance.) Now, when those companies go bankrupt, it will take out a lot of other idiots who didn’t have the foresight to
1.) Sell their stock (Mish has been talking about these guys since before their stocks peaked… I have no pity for anyone who didn’t bother to research the bearish arguments.)
2.) Realize that the “insurance” was just a false confidence builder (see 1. re: mish). This applies to all of the entities that the failures of these companies will cause via derivatives, etc.)
This will affect the economy in a big way, but people who have prepared ahead of time can avoid the downfall by avoiding those entities that are in danger – banks with a lot of derivitaves, for example.
On the other hand, when the housing bubble finishes popping in Canada, it will force CMHC to pay up. CMHC cannot go bankrupt – it is guaranteed by the Canadian government. The government of Canada has basically been facilitating speculation for the last few years, via CMHC. This means that when people stop paying their mortgages for whatever reason and CMHC finally has to pay up, it will be everyone in Canada who pays, via either taxes to bail out CMHC or inflation to pay off their debts.
I don’t want my savings destroyed by the bailout of CMHC. When I get back to Canada this summer, I’m closing down my bank and investment accounts and bringing the money with me to Sweden. Sweden’s been through a crisis recently (in the 90’s) and I trust their bankers and central bank more.
Not investment advice, BTW!
111
X
alexcanuck Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Apropos of Holgs comment:
http://tinyurl.com/43skto
“June 18 (Bloomberg) — Bill Ackman was right: the world’s largest bond insurers aren’t worthy of a AAA credit rating and may be headed for the bottom of the scale.”
112
X
Thums up2 Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“the bear faction saw this coming two years ago”
It would be shameful to admit four year!
“a) You assume we are ‘little guys’”
Oh maybe he got no idea that bill gate join the blogs four year ago!
“b) You assume that we aren’t ready for what is coming”
Rental increase stress are on the card and we were already priced out not long ago!
“we’re ready. Save your pity for overleveraged overmortgaged overconsuming fools’.”
And enjoy 133 percent appreciation every five year and live your life bear and mortgage free at the end of mortgage term!
113
X
browntown Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
hey bear nutslappers! yeah waiting for cmhc to go bankrupt yeah rockets coming back down too! look out in neighborhood for rocket drachen! who needs job nasa man, get rich renting course coming soon!!
114
X
Michael Randallbard Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
The New Spec Tax in Shanghai
http://french.hanban.edu.cn/en.....121985.htm
Immediate Results
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad04.html
http://russian.china.org.cn/en.....129818.htm
Were Speculators Chased Out of China Only to go Elsewhere (Vancouver?)
http://www.overseaspropertymal.....-malaysia/
Shanghai Bubble Pops-L.A. Times
http://economistsview.typepad......bubbl.html
Still Problems, More Government Intervention on the Way
http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....Id=5699783
A Second Tax, This Time on Pre-Loved Homes
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gyzg/t265953.htm
115
X
Michael Randallbard Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Nice to see Gregor taking MY advice. Those who know me know that I have been advocating this tax for over a year. It worked in Shanghai and it WILL work here.
116
X
Patiently Waiting Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Rampant speculation is just another antisocial personality disorder needing some laws to contain it:
“By the time those measures were in place in Phoenix last fall, however, the swarm of investors descending on the city was almost too much to stop. At one of the construction sites of big builder Toll Brothers, a van full of investors from Las Vegas pulled up to a sales trailer shortly after the antispeculation measures had gone into effect. According to a Toll Brothers spokesperson, the saleswoman on call was so flustered by the group’s displeasure at being denied an opportunity to invest in such a scalding market that she had to radio headquarters for backup. “They all wanted to buy multiple properties, and they wouldn’t take no for an answer,” says the spokesperson. “They were trying to climb in and give her their deposits. She had to lock herself in the trailer.”"
http://tinyurl.com/66ykxb
117
X
Anonymous Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Flip This:
I don’t think speculation should be taxed. In the long run bubbles serve an important role: they create cheap and abundant supply of a commodity in question.
Way to parrot Daniel Gross’s book.! You neglected to clarify that the commodity is only cheap for the savvy few investors who waited til post-bust to buy the assets.
However, the ignorant masses who were the ones to paid for all that commodity up-front, and they have nothing to show for it.
Do tell, what important role did the USA real estate bubble serve? Are you trying to tell us that the brand new technology of “housing” would never have caught on in a big way otherwise?
118
X
van-zee Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 7:24 am
“Are you trying to tell us that the brand new technology of “housing” would never have caught on in a big way otherwise?”
I think the “technology” of the boom may have been creative financing and the pooling of debts into securities.
119
X
Warren Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 7:36 am
“ou neglected to clarify that the commodity is only cheap for the savvy few investors who waited til post-bust to buy the assets.”
The “commodity” that you’re talking about is a place to live. Savvy investors rent and invest/save their money in other ways.
You’re proposing that “savvy” aka intelligent people don’t deserve to benefit. You might as well support a bailout for all those “poor regular people” who bought a house that is now worth 50% of their purchase price.
Sure, some people got lucky buying when they did. Some knew what they were doing, some didn’t. Its called a free market.
120
X
flip this Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Way to parrot Daniel Gross’s book.!
I thought I was parroting Robert J. Shiller, Irrational Exuberance book… I do not claim this point of view to be a novel idea. I think that there are already government institutions in place to deal with the asset bubbles. These institutions are called central banks. Isn’t it easier and cheaper just to make sure that the central banks do their job? Installing another governernment burocracy very often achieves the opposite effect from the original intention (take CMHC for example).
Do tell, what important role did the USA real estate bubble serve?
I see that my comment came through as though I think that asset bubbles are necessary and beneficial. The point I was trying to make is that the market is the cheapest way to regulate the economy. With the housing bubble for instance, on the surface it seems that trillions of dollars are irrvocably lost. But in effect, these “lost” funds will be slowly seeping back into the economy though cheaper post-bubble housing. I think that cheaper rents and property prices will be an indirect subsidy to the economy as a whole.
121
X
Patiently Waiting Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Too bad most of the bubble housing is crap. Whether its 400 sq ft condos or 4000 sq ft monster homes, this bubble has done a terrible jobs of providing good places to live. I will never buy this pressboard Tyvek junk. A lot of this housing also stays empty, and will degrade quickly, as we’ve seen in the US.
All those wasted resources, all the environmental damage, for nothing good.
This housing bubble will cause all kinds of social and economic turmoil, that will affect even the richest wisest bears.
I hope to never see another housing bubble in my lifetime and will consider a wide range of government taxes and regulations to prevent it.
122
X
M- Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
To be fair, PW, there’s a lot of crappy housing in town. The stuff built during the last boom was crap. The stuff built after the last boom, leading up to this boom, is also crap. The stuff built during this boom is most assuredly crap.
There’s even a helluva lot of crappy 70’s and 80’s stuff– of the half-dozen 70’s and 80’s buildings that I inspected for a relative, all but one had been leaky condos, some of them even had their repaired walls go leaky again.
I wouldn’t put any inherent trust into any age of buildings around here– crappy workmanship is endemic. There are good buildings, but you’ve got to do your own due diligence. All the Hardie siding and rainscreens in the world won’t save you from incompetently-applied tar paper.
123
X
John Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
If there was a way to actually do it… I say YES. Screw condo owners who do this. Screw them right in their greedy ears.
Empty condos are bad for communities, and last time I checked, that’s what a city were suppose to be places for people to live, not simple as an investment opportunity.
I say if people want to cause all the associated problems that this sort of practice causes. Make em pay.
124
X
Blair Johnson Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 9:04 am
They already have a speculator tax – it’s called land transfer fee.
The last thing Vancouver needs is another tax.
I call this place the land of the nickle and dime. Never seen so many taxes.
How did they ever get away with charging all the additional taxes above PST. I am talking about recycling fees, disposal fees, environmental fees, even alcohol tax in a restaurant on taxed alcohol!