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
November 21st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
@joycer:
If you look at the history of Victoria prices, you should be able to find your answer.
Prices are volatile month to month because volume is low and it is a diverse market. High volumes on either extreme of the market, can sway prices. To understand Victoria, you are better to use a running average. I would be willing to bet prices will be higher this month even though sales volume will be lower.
November 21st, 2009 at 1:13 pm
@Jimbosan:
Thanks for the reality check. Good research.
For comparison, Victoria gets under 900mm of rain and 2,100 hours of sunshine per year.
November 21st, 2009 at 1:09 pm
reader: posters like supraboy and scullboy make for entertaining reading; even hard core bears would get bored seeing nothing but posts complaining about prices. toughen up.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pm
goldie
Hello and welcome to the forum!
“arit: Just when I thought this board had become a forum for rationale thought, you ruined it.”
I have always been known as a party pooper!
“You’re probably one of the psycho nutjobs who bombarded Harrison’s website at Bloviating Garth’s urging the other day.”
I almost did, yes, but decided against it because I am afraid of her, seriously, brrrr. Beautiful, smart blonde women are very dangerous.
“Congratulations on being a cyber stalker.”
I am a stalker in real life too. Look behind you now, see that bald guy typing into his phone with an evil smile? Bwahahaaha!
Best regards,
arit
November 21st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
The spin, the spin, stop the spin !!!!!!!!! First the incompetant assholes at BC HEalth Clinics force sick people to stop asking to get the H1N1 vaccine because hockey players and boards of directors needed it more. Now they’re blaming US for the low turnout at the clinics. Will the assholes ever suck in some ethics? Probably not.
http://www.vancouversun.com/he.....story.html
November 21st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
POPE!
Please Ban Supraboy his trolling is ruining the blog and that’s exactly what he wants.
He used to call himself satv and krissh,thumbsup,dave, and John.
It ruins an otherwise good blog and she’s racist.
Thanks,
November 21st, 2009 at 12:42 pm
@Jimbosan: Re: sunshine. This is an issue for my wife who is from the east coast. Vancouver has longer days in the summer (which is grand) but shorter days in the winter. The winter darkness here is hard for her. Vancouver is at 49 degrees latitude while Halifax is at just over 44 degrees (Nova Scotia ranges from 43-46).
November 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I’m an occasional lurker who finds himself mesmerized by the discussion much as I was by the first season of Trailer Park Boys. Yes, it’s mostly stupid, but there are moments of real brilliance and the overall package is entertaining in a disquieting way.
Speaking of the Trailer Park Boys, there may well be subjective reasons for choosing Halifax over Vancouver, but allow me to inject some fact into the discussion of their relative climates.
It is definitely not drier in Halifax, which receives 1,421 millimetres of precipitation annually compared to 1,199 in Vancouver. Virtually the entire eastern third of Canada, from Quebec City eastward, receives more precipitation than southwestern B.C., and indeed, Victoria is drier than almost anywhere east of the Great Lakes. Halifax and Vancouver also enjoy almost the same amount of sunshine, between 1,900 and 2,000 hours a year. Incidentally, most Canadians cities except for those on the prairies and in the B.C. Interior, which are sunnier, and places like St. John’s and Prince Rupert (cloudier) fall within a fairly narrow range.
A proponent of Halifax weather might argue that it rains less there, which is certainly true. That is because it snows more. Why does it snow more? Because it is a good deal colder. The average annual temperature in Halifax is 6.67 degrees compared to 10.08 in Vancouver. You can check all of this out at the Environment Canada Weather Winners site: http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/weather.....tro-e.html
I must also comment on a remark that Vancouver residents don’t travel and cannot afford to. Statistics Canada breaks down international travel (one or more nights abroad) by region only, but in 2007, the latest year for which statistics are available, British Columbians ranked as the best-travelled Canadians, accounting for 16.0 of trips compared to 13.3% of the population.
Now back to growing dope and stealing shopping carts.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:50 am
Read Garth’s latest post on Victoria, mentioned the 5% drop in single family homes in one month. Did a search and got the statistics from Victoria’s real estate board:
http://www.vreb.org/mls_statis.....stics.html
By comparison with October 2008, inventory was lower (down 31 percent), sales are up by more than double, and add to that historically low interest rates. So how is it that in the face of reduced supply (listings), increased demand (sales) and the lowest carrying costs ever (interest rates) that prices still fell?
November 21st, 2009 at 11:43 am
@domus: “When inflation will hit, interest rates will jump. Their mortgage bills will become unmanageable. RE will crash. There is no way around it: under any scenario, RE is not a good place to be. It was a good investment 10 years ago”.
I agree with your conclusion, but for a different reason. I think that they are capable of keeping the mortgage rates low for an indefinite period of time by buying mortgage-backed securities from the banks. But I don’t think that the Federal government cares one way or another of what is going on with the housing market in BC. They are only paying attention to the country-wide statistics. Since the BC market is the most overinflated, it might crash first, before the extra subsidies/stimulus arrive. Or it might not crash at all, depending on what the Federal government does. This is why I agree with your conclusion that buying a property in Vancouver is risky.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:33 am
@arit: Just when I thought this board had become a forum for rationale thought, you ruined it.
You’re probably one of the psycho nutjobs who bombarded Harrison’s website at Bloviating Garth’s urging the other day.
Congratulations on being a cyber stalker.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:28 am
@Vomitron: Apparently, this board is frequented by unrepentant hippies, too.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:11 am
@Drachen: “I think they kept it afloat all this times in the hopes of getting a majority so they could make some major changes to Canada, now that they’ve failed and a majority is not on the horizon they’ve got to look at saving the party,..”
You don’t think they are past the point of no return? If deflating the housing bubble will cause a major economic pain, won’t that hurt their reputation? the concervatives helped to create the bubble in the first place. With the inflation is somewhat easier to pass the blame on: increasing price levels can be easily blamed on the greedy domestic speculators, on the greedy international speculators, on George Soros, there is an endless list of possibilities.
Please correct me if I am wrong, I do not follow the politics in Canada very closely, but didn’t the Liberal party approved the Canadian stimulus package? Is there a major political party with an agenda to deflate the housing bubble, to stop the money printing, and to stop the low interest rate subsidies to the homeowners? If theresn’t, this means that the other parties find the calls for deflating the housing bubble and letting the free market take its course politically dangerous, and unpopular.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:02 am
@Anonymous: You might notice that those are the guidelines for contributors that write articles for this site, not for commentors that respond to them.
I agree with your general point though. I just skip over the insulting comments and read the ones that are interesting.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:51 am
Many here seem to think that interest rate rising will force sell many units.
That’s a good point, it didn’t take a rise in interest rates to make the US market crash.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:47 am
“important distinction between pointing out the errors in someones statements and calling them an idiot.”
…or a real estate agent. Please don’t hurt my feelings. No, you idiot, I’m a retard because I’m also a bear for the last 3 years. What am I going to do, pretend that the world is falling around me when it obviously isn’t? Pretend that I’m some evil genius that has it figured out? I’ve been WRONG and I’m trying to understand why.
“A mortgage for an entry level 2nd floor,no view, ten year old condo will cost you $2,000 and the max you can get from EI is $1650 a month.”
I can go with this if you factor in strata fees and taxes, it can *easily* be $2 – 3k per month. Of course, given this statement, one might also assume that EI is $1650 /month per *individual*(?) Which means that it’s possible they’re still ok.
Even at extremes, selling at a loss or allowing foreclosure is a calculated loss. Someone isn’t going to take a $50k hit if it means alternatively adding $400 to their high interest credit card each month to get through some “brief” but rough times. These types of deals will probably only come from buildings attacked by special levies, extreme family hardships, or quadrupling of interest rates.
Incidentally, @ Royal Bank, if interest rates rise, but you’ve already been paying off the mortgage for X years, they’re willing to extend the amortization up to your contract (extend by X years) in order to keep your payments low. Many here seem to think that interest rate rising will force sell many units. I think that as long as interest rates rise steadily, there’s enough time to keep it under control.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:47 am
This week I heard this:
1. Hotel in Whistler – “last year was bad, this year is worse”(Global TV)
2.Fitness Centre in FV.- closing after 12 years (friend works there)
3.Condo back on market for -20% than paid 18 months ago.(FTB friend)
4.Hours cut by 50% (friend that is an electrician)
5.Renegotiated rent (friend had landlord reduce rent from $1250 to $1050 in Chilliwack – for 1 year old 4 bedroom house.)
November 21st, 2009 at 10:43 am
domus, interest rates would rise but the “real interest rates” will be key. if real interest rates are negative or close real estate would do ok, even in the current environment.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:33 am
@patriotzed:
There’s a problem with your examples.
Both examples demonstrate how housing prices are not directly tied to stock prices but neither demonstrates how stocks fare when a highly overvalued real-estate bubble crashes. For counter-examples look at nearly every real-estate bubble recently and what happened to other investments when that bubble crashed, Japan’s economy took a big hit, UK, US, Australia all took big hits when their markets crashed. Why should it be different here?
November 21st, 2009 at 10:32 am
@flip_this: Excellent analysis, I agree with most arguments.
I would add one thing: normally buying RE is a good inflation hedge. However that is not ture for people with little or no equity in their home, like most new buyers. They are basically ‘renting’ their homes and their rent is indexed to the market interest rate.
When inflation will hit, interest rates will jump. Their mortgage bills will become unmanageable. RE will crash. There is no way around it: under any scenario, RE is not a good place to be. It was a good investment 10 years ago.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:26 am
@flip_this:
But there also comes a time when politicians have to start looking at the big picture. I think they kept it afloat all this times in the hopes of getting a majority so they could make some major changes to Canada, now that they’ve failed and a majority is not on the horizon they’ve got to look at saving the party, if the Conservative party becomes synonymous with Canada’s biggest (by far!) ever economic fiasco which will be blamed on incompetence (if they can spin it) or cold political calculation, putting their interests above all consequences they’ll be as broken as they were in the ’90s, probably without any reasonable chance of resurrection this time.
Also, with Harper and McKay looking at the possibility of a war crimes trial in the Hague I think they might be starting to think about exiting the spotlight sometime soon.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:51 am
@patriotzed: “No I disagree, other assets will be priced according to their own fundamentals.”
I should think that if housing market crashes, fundamentals of the businesses tied to the domestic economy will deteriorate for some time (short term pain for the long term gain). Due to the wealth effect people will spend less, banks will be hurt, lots of construction jobs will be lost in a comparatively brief period of time. The construction workers will have to retrain and seek employment in some other industries. So, this looks to me like a structural change, and structural changes are painful.
Your examples bring up an interesting point: The great depression started with the deflation of the stock market bubble, there was no nation-wide housing bubble at that time. Later on, with abandonment of the gold standard the US authorities tried with some success to reinflate the original bubble. The money printing, unlike our present situation, was not directed specifically at the housing. It appears that the excess liquidity created by the money printing unless specifically directed, goes into the most liquid assets (stocks and bonds) first, and then propagates through the rest of the economy. So, do you think that the government will abandon the reinflation of the housing bubble, abolish the CMHC, and turn its attention to creating bubbles in some other asset markets to keep the baby boomer voters happy?
November 21st, 2009 at 9:19 am
@patriotzed: I should’ve said “artificially low interest rates”. I subscribe to the opinion that central banks should stay out of interfering with the interest rates. Artificially set interest rates convey distorted information to the economic entities on the availability of savings, which leads to mislocation of capital. The housing market is just a subset of the economy, distorted by the central planning.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:44 am
@flip_this:
No I disagree, other assets will be priced according to their own fundamentals. Look at the US stock market this year which has gone up over 50% with housing going nowhere.
You might also want to take a look at the Great Depression where the stock market bottomed in late 1932 while housing continued to decline for some years and didn’t recover until the end of WWII. Or the 1980′s which saw a big bull market in stocks and bonds post-1982 while housing went nowhere for 5 years in BC, and for over a decade in Alberta and southwestern US.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:36 am
@flip_this:
Low interest rates – on Crown debt and guaranteed deposits – are not in themselves the problem. We have seen the most serious deflation since the 1930′s and low interest rates for these are natural in such a situation.
The problem is government guarantees on mortgage lending which are misallocating capital. Business which want to expand and hire people are not getting loans because the bank would rather lend the money to some fool buying an overpriced house, because they are assured of getting their money back.
Yields on corporate debt, preferreds, and common shares are much higher than mortgage rates because the market is pricing in the risk properly. Telus for example has a dividend yield of 5.5% on common shares.
If the government would get the hell out of the mortgage business, as it should, banks would be asking for higher yields than this on mortgages without a substantial down payment IMHO.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:32 am
@logic: I assume that most of the boomers own houses, therefore they have a significant portion of their wealth tied up in the housing. Besides, deflation in the housing market will likely trigger deflation in most of the other investments.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:23 am
@Drachen:
Nope, that’s just plain wrong, the banks MUST get mortgage insurance (from CMHC or a “private” insurer which is also government backed) if the down payment is less than 20%.
“The Canadian Bank Act prohibits most federally regulated lending institutions from providing mortgages without mortgage loan insurance for amounts that exceed 80% of the value of the home or purchases with less than 20% down payment.”
http://www.cmhc.ca/en/co/moloin/moloin_002.cfm
November 21st, 2009 at 3:43 am
This blog has gone to the dogs.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:42 am
“Personal attacks are not acceptable and will get you banned as a contributor. There’s an important distinction between pointing out the errors in someones statements and calling them an idiot. The former is acceptable, the latter is not.”
November 21st, 2009 at 2:36 am
Superboi said: “I’m currently in Bangkok sipping coconut juice out of a ladyboi’s butt. ”
——–
Well, enjoy that.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:32 am
“2. Keep the credit flowing into the housing market, which implies confiscating the wealth from the savers (a minority of electorate) and redistributing it to the borrowers (a majority of electorate).”
————-
Actually, there are also a lot of savers – ie boomers with retirement pots – who are getting screwed by low interest rates. They represent one hell of a lot of votes too.
November 21st, 2009 at 1:13 am
flip, those are good posts; indeed hard to identify a government motivation for deflation at this point. not to mention that deflationary debt liquidation has not worked in the u.s. or japan because the debt problem is too sizeable. basically lots of pain and no gain- the u.s. and japan are going to have to resort to monetization anyway. like most major countries the cat got out of the bag in canada and it’s too late to take the moral high ground. i’ve said it before, i anticipate the bear vs. cmhc battle to heat up. i warned anyone who would listen the last few years to keep an eye on the cmhc as a window to authority intent.
November 21st, 2009 at 1:02 am
Good one vince!
Scullboy, it’s time for you and your attitude to leave.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:58 am
@scullboy:
Regarding whether I’ve been to east of the Rockies, I’ve been over to Europe 4 times in the past 3 years for work and vacation. You’re the only idiot who’s stuck in the same city for life asking friends for pictures of halifax. He probably sent you a picture of Whistler in the summer and told you it’s halifax. I’m currently in Bangkok sipping coconut juice laughing at your sorry butt.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:58 am
scullboy…na na na na hey hey hey goodbye
November 21st, 2009 at 12:40 am
@Drachen: “I think what many people (including yourself) don’t get is that such high prices HURT the economy, people who are paying every last penny on their mortgage don’t have money to spend elsewhere and the loss of that discretionary spending hurts the vendors and their suppliers and the banks who give them loans.”
Drachen, please don’t misunderstand me: I absolutely get the point that low interest rates, interferences in the markets, and the resulting mislocation of resources hurt the economy. I grew up in a planned economy, and I do have a first-hand knowledge of what mislocation of resources looks like.
The issue here is not what’s good for the economy, but what the federal government and BoC would do. I think that their motivation is not what’s the best for the economy; It is different: most politicians just want to get reelected. And they don’t get reelected by letting an imaginary housing wealth of 70% of their voters crash to the ground.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:37 am
@scullboy:
Mr. Scullboy, you’ve been crying about leaving this city. So what’s your excuse for staying around? You’re totally making a fool of yourself here. Are you afraid of leaving your comfort zone?
Scullboy is the type of person who despises the rich yet he wants to be rich himself. He wants to vent his anger yet his friends don’t give a bull crap about him, therefore, he vents his pain here on the internet.
He wants to leave yet he’s afraid of making the wrong move, as a result, not moving is the right move for himself. He will continue to complain about sky high prices as long as he sticks around Vancouver. When he gets to Halifax, he’ll complain about ridiculous taxes, sad winters, and lack of multicultural restaurants.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:12 am
@patriotz: “And if you are maybe talking about letting the banks charge what they want but the government paying the increase rather than the borrower, that will not happen either, because it would bankrupt the government.”
I am not sure what will bankrupt the government faster: losses incurred by the CMHC, plus economic collapse resulting from the housing deflation, or stealth taxation of the savers through the money printing. It seems to me that with the homeownership rate at 70%, the stealth confiscation of wealth through inflation is more politically acceptable. And the government doesn’t really have to go to the bond market and worry about rising funds for the mortgage bonds. It can continue with what they’ve been doing so far: creating money out of the thin air and buying mortgages from the banks. I don’t see how buying mortgages from the banks will bankrupt the banks. Just the opposite can be true: banks will be given freshly printed money first, therefore they will share in the wealth confiscated through inflation.
But here you might say that such massive money creation will lead to the increased rates on the Canadian government debt, and will bring down the Canadian Dollar. Well, with the US dollar being depreciated through the money printing, I am sure that with US being our biggest trading partner, BoC is concerned about the Canadian dollar appreciating in relation to the USD. So, they will make efforts to keep the Canadian dollar low. Keeping Canadian currency low can be accomplished through money printing, and money printing means artificially low rates.
To sum this up, this issue is bigger then just Vancouver housing market: there is a giant nation-wide housing credit bubble in Canada. If rates go up, a significant number of homeowners will, at the very least, find themselves in very tight financial circumstances, or worse, will go bankrupt. And this affects roughly 70% of voters. The government has two choices:
1. Let the bubble deflate on its own, and live through a short-term (but who really knows) deflation pain to clean up the system in order to ensure long-term economic prosperity, and thus lose the elections.
2. Keep the credit flowing into the housing market, which implies confiscating the wealth from the savers (a minority of electorate) and redistributing it to the borrowers (a majority of electorate).
Gee, I don’t know which one they will choose.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
“when people say that someplace is “the best place on earth” they’re not actually running a qualitative comparison”
Then it’s even more idiotic to claim it, because they really do believe it.
“they’re really just saying that “they like it here, and they’re going to try to make a life””
You think they just shortened it to fit on a license plate? No, that’s not what they’re saying. Lots of people all over the world like where they live, but they don’t print license plates proclaiming its world-wide supremacy.
Obviously, even you can’t believe how ignorant and blindly biased the unwashed masses here are, because you’re forced to come up with some ludicrous ‘interpretation’ to justify what is otherwise unjustifiable.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Im_A_Retard
Retard, you must be a realtor. Realtor. Yes. No doubt. Funny that you chose the name retard since the consensus here is that realtors are mostly retards with a few exceptions, like Paul Boenisch and Rob Chipman and Nikki Harrison.
(If you think Harrison is a retard beware, I hear she can eat you alive without blinking…)
Regards
November 20th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Oh and you’ll have to let the strata fees go into arrears but don’t worry that’ll only go on the title on the 35 year mortgage that the bank holds so you won’t really have to worry about that for decades.
Being unemployed has been just fine in the U.S. except for the homeowner that gets foreclosed on every 7 seconds.
Foreclosures are still GOING UP in the U.S. which means resale prices are going to go up here too, duh!
Just talk to your local hairdresser, coffee barista, retail saleswoman, waiter and you’ll find out real estate in Vancouver is awesome and if you don’t buy now someone else will!
November 20th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
“Not sure how much EI is, but people losing jobs probably aren’t too worried about mortgage payments.”
A mortgage for an entry level 2nd floor,no view, ten year old condo will cost you $2,000 and the max you can get from EI is $1650 a month.
So as long as you can make a few hundred bucks panhanding, have no other debt, no car, no phone, no cable, and don’t actually have to eat any food for the month you’ll be fine.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Hey retard:
EI benefits run around 400 bucks a week at maximum. Who in Van can run on 1600 bucks a month?
November 20th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
You idiots realize that when people say that someplace is “the best place on earth” they’re not actually running a qualitative comparison, right? They’re not going from city to city across the world, comparing the price of hamburgers and running it against a matrix of happiness and riches. That they’re really just saying that “they like it here, and they’re going to try to make a life”, right?
Anyway, this isn’t news, but Jim Flarhety just mentioned that EI will extend to the beginning of 2011. (As opposed to mid 2010 in the US) http://watch.bnn.ca/the-busine.....clip237651 . Not sure how much EI is, but people losing jobs probably aren’t too worried about mortgage payments. I’m thinking that housing costs will remain high through the Olympics until at least until this time next year. Canada is using the US as a buffer – they’ll probably let US hike rates and watch their public’s reaction before they make any changes here. If the US shows strength, it’ll pull Canada along with them.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
@D. Bone:
I already told you in comment 29. Renters!
November 20th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
The Doug Casey article about investing in international real estate was fascinating, especially the part about Vancouver and its “sister” city of Hong Kong.
Doug: Let’s look at the various regions of the world. For people in the U.S., Canada is the easiest place to move to, and I do think Canada will fare much better than the U.S. in the Greater Depression. But that doesn’t mean I want anything to do with Canadian real estate now. It’s far from cheap – in fact, Vancouver real estate has become some of the most expensive in the world today. If I owned anything in Vancouver right now, I’d be hitting the bid.
I do have property in Hong Kong, which may be the most volatile major real estate market in the world. Right now, it appears to be at a manic top. I’m looking to sell my apartment there. This may be hard to believe, but I think I’ll get something on the order of about 25 times what I paid for it. Of course, I bought it very cheap, during a China crisis….
November 20th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Re: Halifax vs Vancouver
Both Halifax and Vancouver have disgraceful histories. Since the day the European Invaders arrived in British Columbia and Nova Scotia there has been trouble, not just for the aboriginal owners of those lands but for later migrants. Chinese migrants to British Columbia were tricked into coming to Canada then abused, ripped-off and subjugated beyond all human decency by white railroad barons, white parliamentarians and thuggish white mobs who at one point even set fire to Chinatown in Vancouver. Migrants to Vancouver from Punjab were actually turned back out to sea in one of the most disgraceful examples of white misbehavior in Canadian history. Nova Scotia has an appalling and mind-boggingly senseless history of subjugating and abusing Afro-Nova Scotians in Halifax.
British Columbia has made some effort to be less outwardly racist than its colonial history. The results have been mixed. There’s still racism, a few religious idiots from Punjab imported spousal murder and terrorism and some recent Porsche-driving robber-baron migrants from The People’s Republic have imported unrestrained über-capitalism that does not respect local laws and customs. Those quasi-criminal millionaires are a disgrace both in China and Canada. Whites are in no position to criticize however, since the crazycapitalistcrimespree Chinese migrant BMW drivers are really just the nouveau-whites of the day in Vancouver.
Nova Scotia has been a little slower to react to modern times. Nova Scotia recent history includes the notorious and racist wrongful murder conviction of Mi’kmaq Donald Marshall by idiot whites and a hilariously bizarre religious homophobic episode in Truro in 2007 when the Mayor of Truro refused to allow the raising of the rainbow flag. It was like Truro was in some type of time-warp or something.
Re: Supraboy calling Canadians stupid and lazy. That may well be true and Canadians may also be drunk and stoned on pot but what does Supraboy expect? That’s Canadian culture. European invaders to Canada are lazy, stupid and drunk because they have not smoked the peace pipe with the aboriginal people of Canada and they have psychological problems about being unrepentant oppressors. It’s a country in dissonance. Second-generation Chinese-Canadian Invaders are also lazy, stupid and drunk (and they smoke pot too).
Anyway, I’d rather have pot-heads than BMW’s and Mercedes in Vancouver. The city is absolutely uptight with the mindless consumerist ambitions of non-lazy and non-stupid Chinese migrants like Supraboy.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I lived in Halifax during university and a few years after. I generally agree with Vomitron and Scullboy on this. Too bad most people I knew there are gone now, because I would definitely go back. Sadly, my family and roots are HERE :^( and its harder to leave than it used to be.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Cant’t afford $3800 for the Olympic hockey tickets from “Jetset”,but I want FREE fucking red mittens Mr.Taxayer.
That’s all I got to say about that.
FORREST
November 20th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
That’s one thing that always surprised me about Van. So few people have travelled and fewer still have travelled anywhere in Canada. I supposed that’s why so many people swallow the the best place on earth bullcrap.
I’m not a huge fan of Toronto but it’s got its moments. I *love* Montreal but it’s hard to work there if you aren’t French. I really dislike Ottawa (especially in winter) but I can see why others like it.
Halifax isn’t perfect and I’ll miss the mountains for sure… but it’s got its charms.
Hey Supratard, ever been east of the Rockies? I’m dying to know. I’m willing to bet your idea of exotic travel is heading to Victoria for the weekend.