Monday Misc: Starts, Polls, Taxes & More!
Here’s an odd jumble of news from today’s Vancouver Sun. It looks like housing starts did a suprise rebound in May with more than expected increases in single family and multiple dwelling sectors. The biggest jump was a 22% increase in Ontario, the smallest was actually the opposite of an increase.. A whaddyacallit? Oh yeah, a decrease. BC housing starts dropped 5% and are now near record lows. Are developers seeing tough times ahead, or have they over-reacted and are we going to run out of condos?
Meanwhile Vancouver has been named ‘the most livable city‘ by the Economist Intelligence Unit when it comes to the combination of health care, stability, culture and environment, education and infrastructure. According to the poll, the main problem Vancouver faces is “petty crime and the availability of good-quality housing.”
Here’s someone who might disagree with that assesment and add ‘taxes’ to the list. A BC realtor has been extradited from Mexico and charged with tax evasion after he filed claims of ‘no income’ for 2001 to 2004. His argument to the court? He claims his activities as a real estate agent were not taxable since they were conducted in his own capacity as a “natural person”.
Meanwhile, you better enjoy those stories of celebrity foreclosures while you can, because the OECD has just declared that the downturn has hit bottom in Canada. Guess it’s a good thing we’ve got that big jump in National housing starts huh?
RSS 2.0 comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
1
X
Steve Says:
June 8th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
LOL, we’ve hit bottom again! Could of swore I’ve heard the same thing last October!
2
X
Rodger Beals Says:
June 8th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
OTTAWA, June 9, 2008 — The seasonally adjusted annual rate1 of housing starts was 221,300 units in May, up from 213,900 units in April, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).
“Housing starts in May moved up from the strong level posted in April. Most of the increase reflected a rise in single starts, which in April had reached their lowest level since May 2001,” said Bob Dugan, Chief Economist at CMHC’s Market Analysis Centre.
3
X
Matt Says:
June 8th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Vancouver is a great place to live, there’s no disputing that. The question is, what are you going to do for a living that will afford you this lifestyle? Investment banking? M&A with a magic circle/white shoe law firm?
4
X
Denialisrampant Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 6:45 am
BC LIBS decide that tax dollars are better spent raising special needs children than informing parents of their choices. Is this a ‘bible belt’ boomer-rang thank you from Campbell in his last term of office? Whats next, shooting abortion doctors? Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. Maybe Gordo should start drinking again. Is this his ‘transition position’ into the Federal Conservative Party or a senate seat?
http://www.vancouversun.com/He.....story.html
5
X
circlingthebowl Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Deep in denial the government has kept the information on the H1N1 pandemic under wraps, to the point of purpoely not reporting cases that would increase the reported number of cases to the international media. Gotta keep those hoel rooms busy right? Who gives a shit if a few people die?
“”The initial thoughts of a month ago – maybe this is a flash in the pan – well, it’s not a flash in the pan, it’s clearly continuing to spread,” said Michael Gardam, director of infectious diseases prevention and control for the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion.
Since not all sick patients are being tested for H1N1, Dr. Gardam said the numbers of those infected are actually higher.
There were 1,795 laboratory-confirmed cases of the H1N1 flu virus reported in nine provinces and three territories as of Wednesday, including three deaths. Since Wednesday, 320 new cases have been reported, about half in Ontario. Worldwide, the virus has spread to 70 countries, where it has infected 21,940 people and killed 125″
http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....le1172090/
6
X
jesse Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 7:32 am
“‘So we’ll probably see housing starts chug along at a lower level as opposed to rebounding sharply back up,’ Kavcic said. ‘We’ll see a bit of rebound from these recession levels but you’re not going to get back to 2005 or 2006 levels any time soon.’”
Somebody is starting to get it. Low residential starts. Completion of Olympic-spawned projects. On the plus side for builders, labour is probably really cheap these days, for those who can get work at all.
7
X
Anon Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 8:41 am
I m very surprise by the economist ranking. Vancouver is obviously a good place to live but the best???? Here some counter example:
Health care: I blew up my knee. It was very hard to see a general practionner and the four of them have been incompetent. Delays for an MRI is around 6 month, delays for an orthopedic surgeon is around 1 year for the first appointment one to two years for surgery. I needed two and in both case I went back to france to get it done. Every time I talk with people around me everybody found that the medcare system here is way overloaded.
Culture: Meh, vancouver is ok, but there is way more culture in my half a million people town in France than in vancouver. I m talking museum, expo, music, food, strret life etc etc. Vancouver got a loosy museum, an aquarium, the pne and granville market… Don t forget the super classy Granville street on a saturday nigth. Oh, and the hipsters faking the original retards of new york are really the best of our generation.
Infrastructure: Talk to every commuter stuck in traffic jam or crammed in overcrowded buses. I m so fed up of my one hour one way commute everyday.
Education: Sorry guys once again, but the education here don t compete with france or any major european country. I m laughing my ass off when I give 95% mark to my students for their loosy job because that is the way it is done here. Keep pumping their over inflated ego. I didn t knew that we had so many baby Einstein deserving perfect marks.
Livable: Sure vancouver is as appealing as young teenage blond with huge fake boobs and too much make up.
Housing: I love my basement suite
Jobs: I ll leave vancouver a soon as I loose my now ok paid job which will be pretty soon. Of all my friends which have been laid off recently none of them found a good decent job here. No, maybe Joe is happy serving 5$ cappuccino to fat asses in lululemon. I wonder how long this one is going to last too.
Petty crime: When the recession will hit full bloom those might turn into a nightmare. There is way too much drugs and gangs in this town
I could keep going but I rather shut the rant off…
PS: What scare me is how much worst are the other N. American city if Vancouver always ranked #1. My guess is that there is tons of average size city which do not enter the ranking. I will find one of those unknown beautiful rarity.
Cheers
8
X
Matt Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 8:50 am
anon 8:41am, say what you will about primary and high school education, but I challenge you to find a single university in France that’s not a grande ecole that could compete with SFU and UBC in terms of research calibre or teaching quality. The French post secondary education system is a horribly classist, broken institution.
Outside of a select elite group of universities in Europe such as Oxbridge, ENA, Ecole Polytechnique, ETH Zurich, university education is of pathetically poor quality.
The failure of B.C. is to find a way to capitalise on the UBC, UVIC and SFU graduates. The computer game/software industry is a good start but more needs to be done to encourage technology firms to move to and stay in Vancouver.
9
X
Maestro Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Edmonton real estate agent accused of sex assault
Three city prostitutes have come forward independently alleging that an Edmonton man confined and sexually assaulted them, in two instances causing bodily harm.
http://www.calgaryherald.com
10
X
Mold city Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Steve: LOL, we’ve hit bottom again! Could of swore I’ve heard the same thing last October!
We did hit bottom in October, this is just a bottomier bottom. I can hardly wait for next October which promises to be the bottomiest bottom ever!
11
X
Anon Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Matt,
Don t get me wrong UBC and SFU are very good school. But you can take any middle size size city of more than half a million people and it will have a similar level of education as well as research facilities. For the sake of it, look at universite Joseph fourier in grenoble or paul sabatier in toulouse. Look at all the numerous engineering school. Then you can start looking at the elite of the ecole normale, polytechnique, ena etc.
As for the capitalizing aspect I dearly agree with you. I don t think you can put so much the blame on the university themselves more to the inability of doing business here. Everybody is late and lacking professionalism. Everybody is full of themselve thinking they are the best that they tend to forget the reality of actually doing the hard work. I have seen most of the best students leaving to either Alberta, Toronto, US or europe to find an environment and a salary more suited to their ambitions.
12
X
realpaul Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Anon:
Anon #7 , I got knews for you, the wait time for an MRI in BC is now officially 14 months.
Regarding marks. 95% is the mark for handing in papers on time. 87% is the guaranteed minimum for showing up.
You’re right about the fake boob analogy. They look good in the dim light of a bar but the reality is that they aren’t nearly as much fun as the real thing.
The transpo infrastructure is absolutley abysmal. It was originally designed by a retarded chimpanzee and a bus union organizer.It’s the worst of any country by far.
Speaking of fat asses in lululemon, my gripe is the ’suddenly summer’ fatties that are trying to squeeze into the faux ‘tour de France’ bikers spandex outfits. It looks like a blimp sausage parade of dumpy gay oldies covered in cheapo stickers. Lordy, that ain’t pretty at all. Theres probably two thousand dollars plus bike wasted on looking really stupid.
So you noticed the total lack of culture? Can’t you drink and say ‘Yahoooo’? If you want to be a real Vancouverite you have to have a least one good swill puke and a pansy fight on Granville Strasse. Then the next day you go for a ‘bushwalk’ along the fecal coated beaches or drive your leased car around and around and around cause you can’t afford city parking at $12 per hour downtown. Thats local culture baby!
13
X
Just_Spiffy Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
My hubby graduated from a BC university in the Tech field. When job hunting in BC, the propects here to be honest sucked big time! So, we were lurged to the US. We just moved back here recently to be nearer family, but we took a $20,000 a year paycut to do so.
14
X
Just_Spiffy Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:04 am
OH I should mention the cost of living here is just as high as where we lived before and the quality of living isn’t as nice. We were in the Seattle area. Bellevue and Kirkland just don’t compare to Surrey and Langley!
15
X
No Longer Looking Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Just_Spiffy, this is the problem with Vancouver. The middle class works their butt off but live like a welfare recipients in Saskatoon. People who want to compare Vancouver to third world hellholes, don’t get it. Our competition is places like Seattle or Ottawa, and we are losing.
16
X
Mark Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Interesting article on buying VS renting:
http://messymatters.com/2009/06/01/buyrent/
17
X
Mark Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:54 am
An interesting comment from the same link above:
“There’s a more fundamental reason that home ownership doesn’t become free after the mortgage is paid off, even if there were no property taxes or maintenance: opportunity cost. I didn’t make this clear enough in the post.
Imagine yourself 30 years from now with a house you fully own, with no more payments to make. Now imagine your alternate renting self who, instead of steadily paying down the principal on the mortgage, has built up hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity in some other investment. You still have rent to pay each month but that’s also about how much you’re collecting in interest on your investments. So the renter now lives for free just like the home-buyer.
Another way to say all this is that if you ignore price bubbles, taxes, personal preferences, and leverage then renting and buying are roughly financially equivalent. Not that you should ignore those things, just don’t fall for the myths that it’s a no-brainer decision.”
18
X
oneangryslav Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
No Longer Looking: Some of you are being as willfully ignorant of this study as the bulls are of data related to the real estate market.
“People who want to compare Vancouver to third world hellholes, don’t get it.”
How many times do I have to write that Vancouver was one of 140 cities around the world, that are included in this annual ranking. You may think that Vancouver shouldn’t be ranked at the top (hell, I agree), but please do not misrepresent the study. Vancouver is not the only city from a developed country included in the survey: every major city in North America and Europe is included.
You may quarrel with the specifics of the index; based on a quick perusal of the cities at the top–many Canadian, Australian, and European cities–the index is probably weighted in such a manner that broads country-wide phenomena, such as political stability, predominate.
As for health care in BC, when I lived in the United States I probably had better health care than 85% of the US population, but I still prefer the health care that I get in BC.
19
X
oneangryslav Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Forgot to close the italics after the quote…
20
X
realpaul Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
oneangryslav:
#18, and if the canucks had won it would be a perfect world. Lets face it, italics aside. BTW italics or upper case, the point is the same. Studies like this are inherantly flawed because we don’t know who paid for them. It’s like queing up to change canada on the recommendations of ‘The center for policy alternatives’ or ‘democracy watch’ or ‘ the heritage foundation’. you should be more critical and not be so quick to agree with ’studies’ which happen to fit your POV. Poly-sci 101.
21
X
jesse Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“if you ignore price bubbles, taxes, personal preferences, and leverage then renting and buying are roughly financially equivalent.”
Not quite. There is added risk renting to someone other than yourself so renting will always have an inherent premium compared to owning, as long as all costs are properly accounted for. This of course is not true during asset bubbles.
Where prices end up entirely depends upon landlords, who will eventually act as marginal buyers and sellers. Whether there are tax advantages to owning is not relevant in the long run; whether a shrewd investor can make a decent risk-adjusted return is very relevant and is how I would figure out if we’re close to bottom.
22
X
exx Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Interest rates continue their rise upwards. TD just increased their 5 year fixed by 0.40%
Assuming the banks all move their 5-year posted rates to 5.85%, that will amount to a 0.60% increase in the last nine days.
Source: Canadian Mortgage Trends
23
X
Mark Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
#20, I totally agree. Every article or study has some sort of agenda attached to it. The question I have to ask is, how many people from this study who actually live in Vancouver have also lived in even 1-2 of the other competing cities worldwide? Also, how was it funded?
24
X
VanBanker Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“Mark Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
#20, I totally agree. Every article or study has some sort of agenda attached to it. The question I have to ask is, how many people from this study who actually live in Vancouver have also lived in even 1-2 of the other competing cities worldwide? Also, how was it funded?”
That study was conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit in London, England. They ranked Canadian and Australian near the top, so I think you’re all over-reacting a bit about the “hidden agendas” etc.
25
X
Mark Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“That study was conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit in London, England. They ranked Canadian and Australian near the top, so I think you’re all over-reacting a bit about the “hidden agendas” etc.”
I don’t know about that. I would have to do some research on the corporate ownership of EIU before agreeing with you.
Based on what I just found on them via a google search, clearly they lean towards the side of affluence, and therefore their bias on the “best cities to live” is based on a higher end demographic.
26
X
read on Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
exx Says:Reply to this comment
June 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Interest rates continue their rise upwards. TD just increased their 5 year fixed by 0.40%
—————–
Good. Now when will deposit rats on my current account begin to rise then?
27
X
macchiato Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Calgary is ranked 5th on Economist livability list … so who really cares about this study. This isn’t something to be used to gauge where to live in the world, I think Calgary is a shithole, but the interpretation of the study by media, etc, seem to think this justifies the ‘best place on earth’ nonsense.
Further, the differences of the measured cities in the top positions 1-30 are negligible. The study’s authors have stated this previously.
28
X
Hovering Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
not sure if this has been posted
good article by Robert Shiller in the NY times.
http://finance.yahoo.com/real-.....estate-buy
29
X
oneangryslav Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
realpaul:
and if the canucks had won it would be a perfect world.
Okay–thanks for starting your response with a non-sequitir.
Studies like this are inherantly flawed because we don’t know who paid for them.
Nobody paid for them; it’s a service that is provided by the Economist Intelligence Unit, and anyone can purchase the comprehensive results of the study if they choose to do so.
you should be more critical and not be so quick to agree with ’studies’ which happen to fit your POV. Poly-sci 101.
Thanks, I’ll remember that the next time I teach Poli Sci 101.
By the way, this study does not fit my POV, but given what I know about the reports that the EUI has done in the past (I’ve used their country profiles before), they’re quite good and the methodology (if you purchase the complete reports) is transparent and solid.
So, now tell me why the EIU would create an index of livability that would be biased towards Vancouver? What legitimate self-interested reason would they have to do this. I can just see the executive board saying “well, the goal of creating this index is to sell it to corporations, which they can use to make decisions that are beneficial to them. I think it’ll be easier to sell our research to them if we incorporate biases that make Vancouver (the bane of realpaul’s existence) look better than it actually is.”
Realpaul, you’ve cracked the code.
30
X
realpaul Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
oneangryslav:
# 29, so you’re starting to get it. Now tell yourself that every story you see, hear and read locally is also a free ’service’ and that it’s all true, every line, statement, gesture and nuance, all true. Wheeeeeee !!! And we’re number one !!!! Don’t mind the maggots.
Thats exactly how corporations work. They spend their own money and generate free stuff for public consumption. And since this about the ninth time that this same bountiful and generous corporation has reprinted this same free study I’m sure that everyone has tired of supporting it and the Vanc Sun reprints it because there is nothing else to put on the sheet.
How could I have missed the scumbags, liars and manipulators in the Tourism Ministries etc pulling their retainers. It was only in the days of yesterday and yore that agencies and councils of ‘experts’ fiddled their numbers for pay and released differant and pleasing numbers and reports in each and every market which it had corporate relations with. Now everything I want to agree with must be right, after all I’m special and I live in a ’special place’.
No sir, you’re right , it’s all believable and true these days. Since my lobotomy I’m much more amenable to suggestion, any suggestion, as long it’s an ‘expert opinion’ printed in a paper famous for it’s lies, obfuscation and flat out pandering to vested intrests for payolla.
Pamela martin by the way is the goddess Minerva and Bill Good is really Saint Nicholas. Bob Rennie is an honest guy sacrificing hinself for the public benefit.
How could I not agree with you?
31
X
I tried posting this at RC but censored Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
“there was a rapid expansion in housing construction, and a rapid increase in household debt as more people borrowed more money to get their own homes. In both periods, housing construction and investment collapsed even more rapidly once the phenomenon peaked”
http://www.bellinghamherald.co.....39371.html
Are other bears being censored at Rob’s Re pumperama blog?
32
X
K-Money Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Well put it this way. If Vancouver really was the best place on Earth millions upon millions would be moving here. How many people moved here last year? Probably under 30,000. More people move to San Diego and LA then to Vancouver.
33
X
oneangryslav Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
realpaul: Oh, I see! Because the final results of the EIU analysis were printed in the Vancouver Sun, they are not true. And do you mean to suggest that the EIU sends different results to different cities? Do they send a list to the Calgary newspapers that has Calgary as the most livable?
Because I’m the type of person who believes everything that’s written or printed, why don’t you tell me what incentive (financial, or otherwise) the EIU has to bias an index such that Vancouver finishes at the top?
34
X
BBY Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
The EIU put Vangroovy on top of the livable list because Gordo Campbell threatened to cancel his Economist subscription unless the Economist atoned for comparing Vangroovy’s drug gang violence to Bogota, Columbia 2 weeks ago. He’s was a bit pissed at that article.
Ah. The Economist does present such diverse views at times…
35
X
oneangryslav Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
That makes sense
36
X
Anonymous Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Vancouver has been named ‘the most livable city‘ by the Economist Intelligence Unit – brought to you by VANOC
37
X
enuf said Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Vanbanker 24: That study was conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit in London, England. They ranked Canadian and Australian near the top, so I think you’re all over-reacting a bit about the “hidden agendas” etc.
Ha ha. UK elected 2 politicians in who say no more immigrants and muslim in their country. EIU’s poll will steer the unwanted hopefully to Australia and Canada where they are welcome.
BBY, this sort of studies and awards are biased and manipulative. My friend, a journalist, writes good review for restaurants in return for vouchers, dinner for 10, and even cash. Once she was flown first class to another city plus deluxe hotel accommodation, and generous expense allowances, to write on the opening ceremony of an entertainment complex. What do you expect her to write, that the new complex was a cheap 3rd rate entertainment joke?
38
X
realpaul Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
enuf said:
#36, Exactly how the magazine buisness works. You get the gold star. I mentioned in an earlier string how dummied up ‘ research services’,'think tanks’ and ‘policy groups’ often consist of two guys in a basement selling stories to publishers. Nobody fact-checks this crap 99.9999% of time. it’s freaking amazing how many people think that whatever they read in the paper must be gospel. It’s editors cobbling stories together.
Sucker born every minute said Barnum.
39
X
BBY Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
By Gordo “canceling his Economist subscription” I really meant “revoking VIP press passes for the Olympics”. The Economist press gang are now back in the VIP seating for the the 2010 Games, thanks to their Livable Vangroovy article. We’re #1!
40
X
VanBanker Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
People, let’s not get distracted by these crazy pro/con Vancouver debates. The topic of this site is Vancouver housing prices.
So… speaking to a large single-family home developer today, I was told they’ve seen a drop off in traffic in the last two weeks.
On another note, just talking to people around the office today about the rise in rates at TD, several people looked freaked out who are looking to re-finance or sell their current place for something else.
Although these observations are anecdotal, I’d certainly say that a weakening of demand combined with rising rates could have some interesting results over the coming months.
41
X
Satve Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
When people defend the “renting is throwing away money” myth, there are a couple of supporting myths they cite in support of it. First is the related claim that by buying a house your costs go down over time as you pay down the principal on the mortgage. This is wrong. It doesn’t account for opportunity costs. Remember that if you were making alternative investments then you’d be raking in enough money in interest to cover most of your rent by the time your home-buying alternate self paid their mortgage off. More generally, the term of your mortgage (or whether you need one at all) doesn’t much factor in to the buy vs rent decision. You can compare renting vs buying as if you’re getting a zero-amortization mortgage. I.e., assume you’ll be paying only interest and never touching the principal so that your mortgage payments are 5% (or whatever rate banks charge these days) of your home’s value per year forever. Whether you have such a hypothetical infinity-year mortgage or a 30-year mortgage or pay up front with a suitcase full of cash doesn’t matter. A long mortgage term means a lot of interest paid but the suitcase full of cash means a lot of interest you would’ve earned forgone. It’s all a wash.
42
X
patriotz Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Meanwhile Vancouver has been named ‘the most livable city‘ by the Economist Intelligence Unit when it comes to the combination of health care, stability, culture and environment, education and infrastructure
Sure it is, for the EIU’s target audience – expense-account business executives. That’s the whole point – their evaluation of amenities is without regard to affordability. If I were making a couple hundred grand and living in West Van I’d be loving it too.
Amenities mean nothing if you cannot afford them. The sad fact is that for middle-class families, Vancouver is one of the least livable cities in Canada. It’s only attractive for singles with good incomes or upper-income families.
43
X
ella Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Patriotz has got it right.
I’m not sure if some of you were actually suggesting that anyone in BC (VANOC included) actually has the power to get the Economist to rank Vancouver as #1, but if so that is silly.
Yes, we all know that media outlets have biases, but you have to figure out a reasonable bias and work from there rather than concocting a random paranoid response.
I wouldn’t rank Vancouver as #1 myself. I would rank Paris higher than Vancouver. Yet I just met some recent transplants from Paris who find that Vancouver is a much better climate for opening a new small business (in their particular field).
Whatever, it doesn’t change the fact that house prices are out of line with rent and developers have corrupted local government and our city planing is short-term at best.
44
X
jesse Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:19 am
“Sure it is, for the EIU’s target audience – expense-account business executives.”
LOL that’s a good one. More like expense-account business executive wannabes.
I’m wringing my hands waiting for all those corporate head offices to move to Vancouver after reading that EIU report.
45
X
realpaul Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:45 am
patriotz:
#41 P, excellent point, Coming to Slime-couver is a big fat bonus if you are being paid in Euro’s, Pounds, or US Dollar denominiated currency like PRC Yuan or HK dlollars. Canada is priced like a third world country for those executives who can relocate here and live cheap cheap cheap!
Imagine coming over from Europe and finding everything costs half price. Wonderful. Canadas wages, standard of living and currency are a standing joke world wide. We live in national poverty while ‘tourists’ get a marginally upgraded Mexican experiance. We should be so proud of ourselves.
46
X
Denialisrampant Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Boy, the deniers just can’t catch a break today. The macro-fundamentals and micro indicators continue to deteriorate both in the depressed housing market and the overall economy. Jeez, I read yesterday that sales are off AGAIN even in Hawaii 50% MOM. Kerflush!!!!!! Isn’t that the acid test of financial health?
OTTAWA — New home prices fell more than expected in April, led by declines in major centres in Western Canada
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1681422
OTTAWA — Canada posted an unexpected trade deficit of $179-million in April as prices and volumes both fell, Statistics Canada said Wednesday, as the economic downturn cut into demand.
Economists had expected a trade surplus of around $1-billion during the month.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1681399
47
X
jesse Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:07 am
realpaul: “Canada is priced like a third world country for those executives who can relocate here and live cheap cheap cheap!”
Why would a company relocate an executive to Vancouver? To be closer to the action? How many corporate executives concentrating on mountains and trees are there?
48
X
Mark Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:20 am
“Sure it is, for the EIU’s target audience – expense-account business executives. That’s the whole point – their evaluation of amenities is without regard to affordability. If I were making a couple hundred grand and living in West Van I’d be loving it too.
Amenities mean nothing if you cannot afford them. The sad fact is that for middle-class families, Vancouver is one of the least livable cities in Canada. It’s only attractive for singles with good incomes or upper-income families.”
This was essentially my point yesterday. Studies like this are leaning towards a certain demographic or income level. Don’t get me wrong, I love Vancouver, and have lived in 6 different cities along the way, but it definitely is NOT an affordable place for most people, and that factor alone should be #1 when it comes to top places to live IMO.
Example: someone earning $35-$40k a year in Vancouver can’t even afford to buy real estate unless they have a huge down payment, but earn the same income in Montreal, and you can live quite well. (I’ve lived there twice on much less than that).
49
X
Vansanity Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 10:27 am
“Disbarred Vancouver lawyer gets seven years in massive mortgage fraud
Martin Wirick has been sentenced to seven years of jail time after pleading guilty to an almost $40 million mortgage fraud, involving 107 real estate clients.”
50
X
rubberduckie Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I think one factor in rent vs. own is the individual’s taxation rate.
A person might prefer to own their home and make small % tax-free in the form of rental savings, versus renting a place and making a larger % off their investment bucks, but losing a chunk of it at their marginal income tax rate.
We are not all the same. High-income earners get more benefit from owning the same property as low-income earners would get. If both put their rental savings into RRSPs, the high-income earner will get a larger tax refund.
51
X
DualCitizenship Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I lived in both Seattle and Vancouver, and frankly, Seattle’s an ugly city.
52
X
No Longer Looking Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:56 am
The Vancouver vacancy seems to have at least tripled what it was only a few months ago, and now stands at 1.9%. As others have mentioned previously, the CHMC figures are only for rental buildings (mainly older, purpose-built), and don’t reflect individually rented condos and basement suites. The real rate is much higher, but what’s interesting here is the trend.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/briti.....-rate.html
53
X
No Longer Looking Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I asked my landlord why he’s spending so much time working on his rental properties. His other business (in financial services) is slow. So slow he’s taking the summer off. Me, I get new bushes, pretty flowers and a repaired walkway. As for my rent, no increase this year after a whole 1% increase last year.
Problem is my great deal may not seem so great next year. At some point, I’ll start negotiating or just find an even better deal. Thank you, all you real estate fanatics, for going into crushing debt so I can continue to have affordable rent.
54
X
Just_Spiffy Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
“DualCitizenship Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I lived in both Seattle and Vancouver, and frankly, Seattle’s an ugly city.”
Ahhh but what about West Seattle or Waterfront Kirkland or Mercer Island or Bellevue. All gorgeous IMO.
55
X
dboy Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
K-Money:
Where are your figures – i’d like to see them.
56
X
patriotz Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
DualCitizenship:
I lived in both Seattle and Vancouver, and frankly, Seattle’s an ugly city.
Have you taken a drive down Kingsway lately?
As for residential areas, Seattle wins hands down. No infestations of ugly monster houses. And needless to say way more affordable too.
I will concede that downtown Vancouver looks better, but BFD.
57
X
No Longer Looking Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Patriotz,
Its not just the monster houses. I find that Vancouver houses are either too plain or too busy. We can’t seem to get it just right. Its like Vancouver has no sense of style.
58
X
No Longer Looking Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Someone even wrote a song about how ugly Vancouver is:
http://tinyurl.com/nqsf5y
59
X
Ulsterman Says:
June 11th, 2009 at 12:01 am
I agree with most here – who cares how many museums, art galleries or outdoor patios there are if you have no chance of buying a single family home even in a burb like Burnaby. When you eventually have a family it’s a bit of space and a garden for your kids to play in that really start to impact your quality of life. The weightings on EIU’s rankings are out of whack.