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
July 6th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Punface: new listings was up 18%. Total inventory was up 50-some percent, though the REBGV report doesn’t make it easy to find this number.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Sorry I’m not very good at imagining what things should cost. Don’t you feel much better knowing instead? Did it explicitly say anywhere that there are 2 ‘additional’ stalls, or are you using your imagination again?
July 6th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Brittanny,
Are you trying to say “WOW” melt down while waiting for crash?
opppsss you did it again Brittanny?
July 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Exx,
What did i say imagine parking lot in coco at half price”IMAGINE”
Now work on your recomendation 2 parkings =$14,000 distance between third floor to twelfth floor $1,500*9=$13,500 so floor 3rd and 12th will cost same in same direction that’s why both units cost $389,000 in downtown difference between floors cost atleast $4,000 then there are lots of view in downtown while view in coco could be free but directions still cost little bit extra every where.Imagine 15k in east side almost $500k in west side for all e,w,s,n facing.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Bear who sold in Dec, 2007 – I knew it was going to get bad, but I did not think it would get this bad so fast. Wow, what a meltdown!
July 6th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
hey nutslappers! good try with history canucknut but remember history show realestate go up! check 1978 to 2008, only canucks stay same level! calculate your rent going out of bank account! ha ha ha hey jim try calculating land left for houses, too bad to many people scrample for garage! hey exx, smart move shop for condo!
July 6th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
From the latest entry on Garth Turner’s blog: “In Vancouver, despite the hype of the 2010 Olympics, the situation is even more dire. Sales have crumbed by 43% in a year, and the number of people trying to bail has grown steadily, with listings up 18%.”
Aren’t listings up way more than 18%?
July 6th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
A few reasons BC’s bubble burst will be bigger than most:
- Olympics venue construction complete as of spring ’08 (2+ billion of investment completed)
- Housing speculation rampant in BC in the past three years
- Widespread psychology of “things will continue to go up until well after the games”
- American speculators begin cashing out to cover their losses south of border
- Listings in the lower mainland triple in 2008 as speculators/investors try to sell
- With multi-billions in mortgage defaults at stake, Canada’s banks release weekly reports pleading Canada is separate from the US (‘Canada will withstand US meltdown’, ‘Canada does not have a subprime crisis’)
- Canada’s versions of subprime mortgages are 0% down, no income verification with 40 year amortizations (40 year mortgages merely inflated and prolonged the bursting of the bubble)
- Most Canadians are now heading south for recreational and/or winter homes rather than west to BC (with their at par loonies they are presently able to purchase new resort homes for a third of what they would pay in the Okanagan, Lower Mainland or Victoria)
- Forestry and tourism start to feel America’s economic pain
- Construction, one of the pillars of BC’s recent boom, dwindles as developers stall projects
- Possibility of NDP regaining power in the upcoming BC election erodes business confidence
- Interest (mortgage) rates begin rising in late ‘08 eroding affordability
- Housing affordability surpasses 70% of average incomes in many areas of the lower mainland
- Migration patterns intensify as oil-powered Alberta/Saskatchewan entice workers from across Canada with exorbitant salaries and low costs of living/tax environments
- Prices of energy (carbon taxes) strain potential buyers just as banks begin tightening their lending practices
- The ripple effect’s first wave of significant home foreclosures and price declines commence in Vancouver autumn ’08
July 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
btw Thums up…
So I actually went to the Coquitlam tower (Heffley) today and asked 2 realtors how much a parking stall goes for. $7-10K. So while I did make the mistake of overlooking the additional parking stall in the example I gave, your assumption that a stall in Coquitlam would be half the price of a “$40-50K downtown stall” is way off. I guess we both don’t know ‘a heck’ about the market.
I went to a few other open houses in Port Moody & Coquitlam today, some in the same buildings that I looked at last month. The prices just keep tumbling down. The best one being a unit we looked at last month going for $379,800. Today? $345,900 (10% haircut). The realtor’s reason for the big drop? The ‘local’ investor is nervous about the market. I asked her if she thought he’d consider an offer 10% below the asking price (~$310,000) and her response, as expected, was “Yes, make an offer, he’s VERY motivated.” I don’t blame him, nearly 20% of the units are for sale.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
big fall cleanup coming!
indeed!
brownstain clean up aisle four!
inventory has multiple legs
like centipede……
July 6th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Hey, look at that! brownstreak took Blueskies advice and learned to use spellcheck.
Now repeat after me…”Calculator”. Also “history book”.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
hey bluenuts! repeat after me… call rbc mortgage broker before to late! secure mortgage ok before inventory swallowed up! inventory surge on its last legs! big fall cleanup coming!
July 6th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
brownstreak:
reports of my death have been grately exagerated
where are the buyers?
why are sales down?
big leg up on inventory!
who’s on first?
repeat after me…”spell check”
July 6th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
yeah, mr market says “reports of my death have been grately exagerated”! 5yr mortgage down this week to 5.19! rocket fuel for next leg up! you can thank browntown for cash advise later!
July 6th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Noname,
Amen. But remember, many of the bulls (at least that troll the boards) don’t care about society or families. They want to make more money for themselves. If thats happening then its good.
If it makes 60% rich and 40% poor, it must be good.
Hold Off Buying That New Home | Discovering The Secrets Of Vancouver Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
[...] Vancouver Condo Free For All [...]
July 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
‘Ant and the Grasshopper’ — good analogy, I was thinking of it when walking the dog earlier today.
It’s not surprising that observers feel some moral outrage at the stupidly unsustainable behaviour of the grasshopper, nor is it surprising that they take some satisfaction at seeing him get his well-deserved comeuppance.
You’d have to be a saint to feel otherwise. And I’m no saint.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
@AlexCanuck No, the people who “wish financial ruin on their fellow citizens” are those using slick marketing campaigns to urge young people to sign up for 40 years of crushing debt to “buy” a shoebox. All so the developer, realtor, mortgage broker or banker can get paid, they know full well what a boom is, and won’t get caught by it’s inevitable collapse.
There it is! Well said. I would extend that further up to the top of that food-chain. It is the banksters, and their attempted power grab through the Federal Reserve and the other central banks who are wishing the financial ruin.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
That’s ‘some upgraded at lesser expense’.
And further, I have saved enough to sustain several years of recession/depression while others have spent everything.
Did anyone not read ‘The Ant and the Grasshopper’ as a child?
July 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
@Matt It’s disturbing to read so many comments from people who wish financial ruin on their fellow citizens.
Very few are wishing this on anyone, despite having to sustain comments such as:
- you’re crazy not to buy now
- you’re an idiot to think you’ll lose money
- you’re throwing your money away on rent
- etc
My comments earlier were simply those with an ‘I told you so’ nature, mixed with a little blame on those whom I know could not afford to buy, yet helped create the bubble. There is no wishing anything on anyone there. If your child does not study for an exam are you wishing that he fails… no! But IF he does you can then say ‘I told you so’ and then proceed to blame him for the higher cost of education…
No, I have mixed feelings as some of my family members did buy in the last few years, so upgraded at lesser expense, and then others like myself did not buy as (speaking for myself) I did not see value for my dollar; rent was the better option.
July 6th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“It’s disturbing to read so many comments from people who wish financial ruin on their fellow citizens.”
If capitalism, competition, the aquisition of wealth and free markets scare you, then I suggest you stay in bed and suck your thumb.
The bulls loved it during the boom and now they are scared to death by the looming bust. This is capitalism, the survival of the fittest, where the strong eat the weak. It is the system we designed for ourselves. Don’t be disturbed by it.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Freako I quoted you in my latest post:
http://fishre.blogspot.com/
July 6th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Garths at it again
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story.....baird.html
July 6th, 2008 at 7:16 am
No, the people who “wish financial ruin on their fellow citizens” are those using slick marketing campaigns to urge young people to sign up for 40 years of crushing debt to “buy” a shoebox.
Yes, those are the people you should point your finger at. As for “armchair economists”, the finger should be pointed at spin doctors like David Lereah, who surely has egg on his face now but he doesn’t care because he quity to join the other side.
We should also point the finger (to a lesser degree) at the media who gives these severely biased industry “economists” so much airtime. When the topic of cigarrettes and cancer come up, imagine what it would look like if big tobacco health “experts” were quoted uncritically in the MSM without opposing viewpoints. Then imagine a FULL PAGE cigarette ad on the opposing page.
Finally, CMHC MUST be blamed for sheer incompetence. Holy sh*t are they out to lunch for:
a) Letting this happen in the first place.
b) Parading their ludicrously bullish “economist” in front of the media.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:44 am
Matt,
As mentioned by many bears previously to me, it is actually the bulls who have no sympathy towards their fellow beings. It is the bulls who expect their fellow citizens to accept living in substandard conditions (600sq condo) out in Coquitlam or Surrey and expect them to raise a family while maintaining a two income household. Where is the sympathy there?
Why is it that an average family working their butt off should settle for such reduction in the quality of life by buying today vs. a family living comfortably just because they were lucky to buy a few years ago?
How can you not have sympathy for that? How can you not have sympathy for people not being able to afford to have a decent family just because they cannot afford to live here anymore? How can you not have sympathy for those who are forced to uproot their family and forced to move to other parts of the country just to make ends meat? How can you not have sympathy for the hard working savers who have been fiscally responsible being screwed over by some bubble seeing that their savings are virtually worthless?
Sympathy is a two way street. Bulls had no sympathy for bears over the last few years. It’s only natural that bears would have no sympathy for the same bulls that showed no sympathy when bears expressed their concerns.
Btw, personally, you know what pisses me off? That I have been extremely hard working, financially responsible, high income earner with relatively a lot of savings and yet in Vancouver I can’t help but feel poor. Why is it that society no longer rewards hard workers but it rewards gamblers? How can individual members be motivated to work and contribute to society if the lesson learned is that you can work hard but you can only get ahead by getting lucky?
On another note, Vancouver is no where near being world class. The surrounding nature is quite scenic but the city itself is a giant bore. Again, personally, not a day goes by that I don’t think of leaving this place. You might ask why I don’t leave and the answer has NOTHING to do with Vancouver. It has to do with personal relationships. Again, how can you not have sympathy for people that have to decide between choosing personal relationships or their quality of life? Where is sympathy from the bulls?
As far as I can see, it is the bulls who are the ignorant selfish greedy members of society who are unwilling to work hard and contribute so I have no reason to feel sorry for them.
Noname
July 6th, 2008 at 6:38 am
It’s disturbing to read so many comments from people who wish financial ruin on their fellow citizens.
Once again: We (I hope I can speak for most bears here) don’t “wish” financial ruin to happen. We simply believe it IS going to, and have made sure it won’t happen to us. Does a specuvestor “wish” financial ruin on those priced out forever by not buying after prices have only doubled, on their way to infinity? And if we choose to buy a nice home at something close to fundamental value, by waiting, is that a flaw?
No, the people who “wish financial ruin on their fellow citizens” are those using slick marketing campaigns to urge young people to sign up for 40 years of crushing debt to “buy” a shoebox. All so the developer, realtor, mortgage broker or banker can get paid, they know full well what a boom is, and won’t get caught by it’s inevitable collapse.
The bank that holds the risky mortgage may see it’s share price hammered, but that’s only YOUR pension fund that takes the hit. The clever individuals who engineered the boom will be fine.
Very simple how booms develop, really. Just follow the money. Last one in the pool is
a rotten eggfinancially ruined.Yes, this logic is appalling, but not the way you (don’t) think.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:32 am
To answer Matt’s last response.
There is a difference between a house and a home. Women call a home, whereas the men a house. The reason has to do with pre-historic human instincts and that is, women’s nesting instincts come into play when making decisions about the family home. The emotional part comes from the female side of the household and can disrupt the sane logically deduction formed by their men (which means selling the house at the top of its price) can be vetoed or torpedoed by their spouses.
Another but mostly neglected part of the human psyche has to do with 3 motivating factors.
A human being will only do something when one of the 3 factors are present. Pain, fear and ambition. When you are suffering from extreme pain in your lungs or throat, what do you do? You do something by going to the doctor or seeing a pharmacist. You just never think about it because it comes naturally. House prices went up so high because most of them have the “ambition” to become rich or “fear” of being priced out.
Do you think they act upon using the intellectual side of their brain? No. Because we are only humans.
Bears and bulls are the same species. I am a bull on the major corporations with low PEs and a bear on current RE and I do this because, I think rationally with the available data. The available data also suggests that unless your house is appreciating 10% gross YOY, you are loosing money as an investment vehicle. Yes, if this is your family home, then it’s ok to loose money. Raising kids is expensive — we’ve been there and we lost a lot of money, but remember the return is greater than the sum of that monetary loss. This is how we try to rationalize a bad situation good.
During this 8 year boom, most people were driven by their ambition to try to become the next Donald Trump and their “fear” of the stock market no thanks to the last dot.com bubble. Where do they put the money that they withdrawn from their brokerage account? Into the real estate market, because loosing money is twice as painful as making money. Only to loose it again. This cycle repeats. We’ve seen it during the late 70s, 80s and 90s.
Yes, we’ve the heard the saying “This time is different”, but every time it turned out to be same old same old. This time is no different.. What’s going to be different is how fast will prices fall.
Unlike the stock market, real estate is a slow to move because it’s such an expensive asset to sell. You need good financing from a bank that’s willing to lend you. And while prices are high now, it is high because it is the asking price. When it is sold, it is the market price or the price the market is willing to bear at the moment. But it’s a vicious cycle. As soon as 1 home is sold in the neighborhood, the next home will be subjected by that market price, not the asking price. But home owners will be stubborn. They all believe that one guy who sold simply cracked. They all believe they are tougher emotionally. But as time dragged on, they see the news that other parts of the town are all selling lower. Then the human emotion side of “fear” sets in. Prices tumble like dominos in the states not because of foreclosures. The “fear” that they would be priced out of the market that drove the housing boom is replaced by the same “fear” that would drive them to become impossible debt slaves.
Human emotions are with us and they dictate what we do. Most wise investor attach no emotion to their investments at all. One friend of ours who is very good at investing in real estate and he had this to say. Buying an investment property is like a one night stand — Wham bam thank you ma’am! Don’t stay around for the carnage. It usually isn’t pretty.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:18 am
Matt. Thanks for the explanation. Bears are like Robert Pickton. Nice.
July 6th, 2008 at 2:42 am
What people wish here has no affect on the market. I’m not sure what you’re point is, Matt. Early in the American bubble burst, homoaners and realwhores turned on potential buyers, saying all kinds of nasty things about them. It appears the same thing is happening here now. This to shall pass.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
It’s stunning how much armchair economics are expounded on this blog yet no one thinks it applies to them.
You’ve got it completely ass-backwards. It’s the bulls who think economic principles – most notably the fundamental law of investing, that an investment is only worth the value of the income that it brings in – don’t apply to them.
But people living in a fantasy world always think it’s the realists who are nutty. Do a little searching on the web and take at look at the attacks on Shiller, Krugman etc in 2005 when they said the US RE bubble was going to burst.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
#101, Freako,
Not for one second am I saying that a decline in prices won’t happen. I’m not trying to dispel the fact that there is a real estate bubble either. In my view the problem is that many people who are wishing for large declines in prices don’t know what they’re wishing for and if we were to experience a relatively sudden drop of say, 35% in a year, that’s the economy’s way of telling us we’re all in a world of pain, above and beyond the corrective action of a deflating bubble. In any case, I think you might get your wish as there are whisperings in the financial press about global stagflation.
It’s disturbing to read so many comments from people who wish financial ruin on their fellow citizens. It seems as though many of you are so upset that you can’t afford a home, someone deserves to pay a price. This logic is appalling.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at how catty Vancouverites are. Consider that the Economist Intelligence Unit consistently rates Vancouver one of the best places to live in the world yet the blight of the Downtown Eastside has been permitted to fester for the last 30 years. Never mind that no one noticed the disappearances of several streetwalkers for over a decade. These people probably deserve this pathetic existence, don’t they? As long as they aren’t blocking the magnificent view of the mountains from one of downtown Vancouver’s much lauded cafes or restaurants, who cares?
As an aside, I find it interesting that whenever a Vancouverite tries to describe what makes Vancouver a world class city, he always mentions the cafes and the restaurants. Whereas if you were to ask someone what makes San Francisco, NYC, London or Tokyo a world class city, the answer is likely to include a description of its economic well being, or its primary means of economic growth.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“Or less SUV’s carrying one person.
And expensive fuel and better transit will accomplish that just fine. Southern California has the best freeway system in the world, the longest commute and the worst traffic.(Worst traffic in US/Canada, too many other factors in say, Bangkok, to fairly compare.) You CAN”T build your way out of congestion, just doesn’t work.”
I think it’s fair to build when facing congestion is the construction is supported by tolls. If the expansion is supported by a toll, as in fully supported without government financing, then the project should go forward. For untolled projects people do a whole ton of studies, etc… and who knows what the right answer is. But if you are fully supporting a project through a toll, then the project is viable just based on user demand.
People choose to commute to work and live far away. Maybe they do so because of high real estate prices in the city, but it’s their way of saving money. There is no reason to punish them MORE because they already have to move far away from where they work. Maybe the European way is the way of the future. But we should let the market decide. Build viable projects that are self-supporting, and then let things evolve from there.
I’m all for increasing transit. I think transit is great. And I don’t need a car, because I live and work downtown. Not only do I not need a car, I don’t own a car.
“And as far as taxpayer supported debt, it is still money I have to pay over the next 40 years. I don’t see the distinction, either way it’s out of my pocket with no choice in the matter.”
Not for something like BC Hydro, or BCTC, or the other crown-corps that are self sustaining, like BC Ferries… I agree with the comment that crown-corps that are not self sustaining should not fall in the same category.
BC Transit, from what I can see, is not self-supporting. Translink is not self-sustaining (ie transit fares are not sufficient to support ops), but that’s because a lot of transit would not be in place without subsidization… subsidization that a lot of people encourage in order to reduce traffic.
And yeah, P3s that are not user-supported are a liability for the public, although technically not debt. Should be treated pretty much the same way though for accounting purposes.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
It’s stunning how much armchair economics are expounded on this blog yet no one thinks it applies to them.
A conclusion jumped to on scant evidence. Most bears are prepared, and it’s a topic done to death long ago and so doesn’t get rehashed much — till someone like you comes along and thinks he’s the first to think of it.
Personally, my job is recession-proof, though my wife’s isn’t. No worries, we’ve already saved a huge downpayment over the last few years, and we’ll buy what we can afford to make payments on my income alone, which is not inconsiderable.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
The debt of a crown corporation is not the government’s debt. Why? Because it is supported by your fees, not your taxes.
That is true only if the cc is a viable business entity earning competitive return on investment. BC Hydro, for example. ICBC is another although in this case it has no debt.
Otherwise taxpayers have to make up the shortfall in the form of subsidies to the cc. BC Transit being a prime example, White elephant owner BC Pavilion Corp (BC place stadium, convention centre) being another.
As has already been pointed out, future obligations to P3′s are another form of debt, e.g the Canada line. BTW local taxpayers, not the P3 operator or BC government, are on the hook if its ridership fails short of expectations. Watch that property tax bill.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
We need larger bridges to reduce congestion.
Or less SUV’s carrying one person.
And expensive fuel and better transit will accomplish that just fine. Southern California has the best freeway system in the world, the longest commute and the worst traffic.(Worst traffic in US/Canada, too many other factors in say, Bangkok, to fairly compare.) You CAN”T build your way out of congestion, just doesn’t work.
And as far as taxpayer supported debt, it is still money I have to pay over the next 40 years. I don’t see the distinction, either way it’s out of my pocket with no choice in the matter. Tolls on a new or even existing bridge is different, I do have a choice of where I live and where I work, and the more expensive the unsustainable choice is the better. Fuel prices and WORKABLE transit alone will do it more simply, though. The sprawling suburbs are going the way of the dinosaur, like it or not. Look to European cities for our future.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I believe that more highways is the last thing we need.
add to that list the airport infrastructure expansion …
in an expensive energy future
will Disneyland be a goto destination?
July 5th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Maybe I should have said bridges then. We need larger bridges to reduce congestion.
Spec-Builders Feel The Heat - When Escaping With “A Small Loss” Is The Same As Having “Won The Lotto”. « Vancouver Real Estate Anecdote Archive Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
[...] July 2008 · No Comments Spec builders have become aware of the slowing market. This from Bob at Vancouver Condo Info July 4th, 2008 at 10:35am [...]
July 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
VancouverGuy said:
“Our economic performance is a different story, but don’t hammer people for running a budgetary surplus and increasing debt if it’s to build the hospitals and highways we need for the future”.
I believe that more highways is the last thing we need.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“The liberals boast of the budgetary surplus all the time, it’s just accounting smoke and mirrors. Total taxpayer supported debt is the figure that matters, it includes such things as crown corp. debt, P3’s future payments (to be fair, add fees you’ll be paying directly to those P3’s). Using that figure, total taxpayer supported debt, the Liberals have been spending your money like drunken sailors, all the way spending more of your taxes to proclaim their fiscal responsibility. And sending me a hundred dollars of my own money (add shipping and handling) as a bribe! Also selling off assets and spending the capital. You’re not supposed to sell assets to support consumption during good times. Fiscally responsible, my ass!”
Total taxpayer supported debt is NOT the key figure. The debt of a crown corporation is not the government’s debt. Why? Because it is supported by your fees, not your taxes. If we had private utilities, you would not count the debt of the utility as taxpayer supported debt. A crown corp is the same thing.
Debt is not a bad thing if it is being used for capital investment rather than current consumption. The whole point of going to accrual accounting instead of cash accounting is so that the budget is NOT smoke and mirrors. It is so that you can see how much is being spent on current services, including capital charges and depreciation on assets. If a government is able to make capital investment, still run a budgetary surplus based on accrual accounting, and lower taxes at the same time then that is fantastic, regardless of increases in debt. Why? Because that means the increases in debt were to pay for capital investment, not to pay for current consumption. So long as it was a good investment, which can be questionable, then it works.
Our economic performance is a different story, but don’t hammer people for running a budgetary surplus and increasing debt if it’s to build the hospitals and highways we need for the future.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I meant Hummers…
July 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
If this government really cared about our carbon footprint/reducing pollution/saving the environment it wouldn’t be spending OUR money on twinning the portmann bridge. The increases in transit fares are another sign on how hypocritical those idiots are… We have so much traffic congestion, the transit system is pathetic and all their doing is trying to make you buy some fluorescent, mercury filled light bulbs or super-expensive hybrids (which btw are not as eco-friendly as everyone wants us to believe)… like that’s gonna make a difference.
We are lied to every second of every hour of every day, and we believe it, bunch of suckers we all are…
I bought a 50cc direct injected sooter last fall that gives me a minimum of 85mpg, has almost no emissions, uses 5 liters of gas a week to get me to and back from work everyday.
My car is now parked and only used sporadically on weekends and I got ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE, NO REBATE and NO DISCOUNT whatsoever for doing as much for the environment as I possibly could.
Bunch of bullshit, that’s what it is.
We all know gas taxes are supporting this fu**ing government and looks to me like the more Hammers on the road the merrier.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:47 am
About the transit/carbon tax issue:
Years ago I was also faced with a bus commute that was longer, more costly and generally more inconvenient than driving my car to work. Now luckily, I get to ride my bike in.
I feel that the entirety of the carbon tax, should be applied to transit infrastructure and reducing the cost of taking public transit. Further, I also feel that transit should be free for the BC public (tourists and non-residents should pay). In other words, yes, subsidize the cr&p out of it.
One further point I’d like to make is that a vehicle consumes the most fuel during acceleration, and it pollutes the most while idling (newer and hybrid cars aside). That said, all roadway infrastructure improvements should be designed around eliminating as many red lights as possible. This will reduce both fuel consumption and pollution, and have the added benefit of reducing commuting times.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:34 am
@Matt The point which I keep trying to get across to the bears on this blog is that a massive decline in real estate prices hurts all of us.
This would only be a true statement when affordability levels are realistic, unlike they are now.
The inverse in Vancouver’s case is true; a massive increase in real estate prices hurts us all. This has led to:
- massive credit bubble
- massive consumption bubble
- soon to be massive foreclosures
- etc
A stable price market instead of a bubble would have made just as many people happy.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am
This story from Tsawwassen shows how how entitled homemoaners worried about property values can keep the media’s attention by creating false issues tugging at our heart-strings:
http://tinyurl.com/6kl4a5
Just like the fools who are mortgaging themselves to foreclosure, these people are responsible for their circumstances. If they were worried about power-lines hurting their children, they wouldn’t have bought there in the first place. According to the story, they also rejected underground lines in the past.
Get used to this manipulation; you’ll see more of it.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:07 am
The point which I keep trying to get across to the bears on this blog is that a massive decline in real estate prices hurts all of us.
Baloney. It hurts nobody except speculators and the RE industry.
If you own a house indefinitely, the value of that house to you is its fundamental value based on equivalent rent, not the market price, whatever it may be from time to time.
The current RE bubble in BC is causing a massive warping of the BC economy toward excess RE investment, damage to non-RE businesses, and excessive consumer spending and indebtedness.
The problems we are seeing now in the US are due to the bubble, not to its end, just as drug withdrawl symptoms are due to the addiction, not going without drugs.
The sooner this idiocy ends, the better, and thankfully it seems clear that the end is now underway.
Oh and one more thing – your tone seems to indicate that the bears can somehow stave off the collapse by changing their tune. Are we supposed to run out and buy just to keep this circus going?
July 5th, 2008 at 11:06 am
I favor some reductions in transit fares (up to 50%) alongside significantly improved service. Suddenly removing (or mostly removing) transit fares will cause a huge stress on our underfunded transit system.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:59 am
It’s true, prices are not set by those who aren’t selling, but by those who are. Guess how much your house/condo will be worth if a couple desperate sellers in your neighbourhood cut the price by a fair bit? You got it, it drags the whole area down. Good luck trying to get $400k for that condo when some speculator had to drop the price to $200k. It all falls down…
July 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am
freako:
Agree wholeheartedly with your post #97. I spend about 3 bucks on gas getting to work and back. The transit fare is $6.50, involves 2 buses, 10 minutes of walking and an extra half hour – 45 minutes of time each way. I’d have to be some sort of eco-martyr to take transit. The car is already insured, I don’t pay insurance based on use (I would save a few pennies in insurance for not using it as a commuter car, but get real), so there’s no disincentive to drive.
The problem with making transit free is that you get stories in the media about the “subsidy” taxpayers pay for transit, given that fares don’t cover the full costs of ridership. Yet no-one talks of “subsidies” for drivers, who pay ZERO (in direct costs) for roads. It’s similar to housing reporting. The core readership owns houses, pays taxes and drives, and that sort of reporting meets with a receptive audience.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Matt, I don’t think anyone doubts that the VAST majority of owners will manage to keep their homes. What you don’t grasp is that prices are set at the margin. If demand is sufficiently low, prices can collapse even without widespread foreclosures.
The point which I keep trying to get across to the bears on this blog is that a massive decline in real estate prices hurts all of us. It’s an indicator that some economic event is taking place that will make all of our lives harder. The market is relaying information to you that something is drastically wrong.
Don’t confuse the messager with the message. Do you know what is wrong? The stinking real estate bubble. That market relayed that message the moment prices ran away from rent. Taking away something that wasn’t rightfully yours may be unpopular, but it is the right thing. Those who porspered because of a direct or indirect consequence of the housing bubble will have to pay the piper. That is just the way it is.