Councilors urge stop to residential tax shift
The city of Vancouver has a policy of shifting the property tax burden from businesses (who pay the majority currently) to residences. Not every one is happy with that policy:
David Cadman and Ellen Woodsworth, both members of the Coalition of Progressive Electors, said they oppose a program by the city of annually transfering one per cent of the tax rate from commercial classes to residential classes.
That policy was brought in two years ago following the recommedations of the Property Tax Policy Review Commission, which said the city is best served by having property taxes made up 52 per cent by residents and 48 per cent by businesses. The review came after businesses complained they made up a disproportionate share of the tax base, up to 60 per cent.
This year city staff have recommended continuing the gradual one per cent shift from the business sector, which translates into a two per cent increase for homeowners. But as the city struggles to find ways to close the $20.6 million gap in the 2011 budget – equivalent to a 3.6 per cent increase across the board – both Woodsworth and Cadman say the business tax transfer should stop.
You can read the full article in the Vancouver Sun but the whole argument is silly. Faced with a $20.6 million budget shortfall there is one obvious course of action for the city to take: cut taxes and increase spending. Once the world finds out about Vancouver they’ll be here with buckets of money to solve any financial woe’s we find ourselves in.
October 21st, 2010 at 1:10 am
Best place on meth Says: Pre-sale buyers now using a 1968 law to get out of their purchases have developers crying in their cranteenies.
Good. Developers used 'twist and turns' in contracts to sell one presale and deliver something completely different throughout the boom, now they're seeing risk come back to them. Real Capitalism can be a bitch.
October 21st, 2010 at 1:06 am
Debt Republic Says: This is not the EU where your economies have gone to hell in a hand basket because of your engrained sense of entitlement to retire at 55 with full pensions….
Google: how does it work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement
When did VCI become the home of Tea Party North wonks? The more interesting question to me is why some are so adamant to take it up the ass from their employers they'ld actually lie about basic and easily confirmed facts?
October 20th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Taking the position that one can only be a renter or an owner and 'never the twain shall meet' is simplistic…at best. I am an owner but I would not buy any real estate at this juncture for any reason. None of the criteria for investment exists in the market today…zero.
I suppose it's wrong to say that I'm actually one of the few people here that actually gets to say, "In my professional opinion anyone buying real estate at this stage of the cycle is a complete and utter moron" and be able to speak with a history in the business, the experiance of many decades, training and education. There is, was and will be a time to buy real estate….that is not now or even soon. It is obvious that the pendulum has swung to favour the renter. The only time you want to purchase residential real estate is when the price is going up…..adversley if the price is going down and your a buyer…well…you're a sucker .
October 20th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
6.43 MOI still indicates a fairly balanced market. No up, no down. Snooze button, activated.
October 20th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
@Best place on meth: Newsflash for bear. Everyone who owns looks down on you forenting loser. No one say so but it's truth. Even mom think you loser.
October 20th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
@Prca: That was not my mom it was gay brother. He like to dress up like girl. Anyway he told me your dad was good.
October 20th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
@Best place on meth:
"Are there actually people in existence in this town who look down on renters?"
Almost certainly, but they're probably not as common as some would like to think.
I think renting in Vancouver is pretty good – the overall quality of housing is very high, and the BC Tenancy Act is extremely favourable towards renters. Only 2 weeks security deposit? I've lived other places where 6 weeks was the norm. And you were lucky to ever have it returned by the landlord.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
@VHB:
"MoI at this sales pace 6.43"
That would be a significant drop from last month, no?
October 20th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
OK, so tell me. The sell-to-list is improving in October. Does that mean that prices are dropping or does it mean that buyers are coming back into the market?
Also, I realize that there is a certain amount of gamesmanship involved in listing a house so that it seems fresh. Does this mean that an equilibrium sell to list is well below 1.0x? Does anyone know what a neutral sell/list figure is?
October 20th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
We are starting a local branch of our party, but are calling it Condo Prices are too Damn High Party.
Jimmy is coming to Vancouver to speak next week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0&fe…
October 20th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Most Wesr Van residents are renters.
Jimmy Pattison's rent cheque bounced.
October 20th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
"Are there actually people in existence in this town who look down on renters?"
Does a bear shit in the woods?
October 20th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Spot The Speculator #21
Toronto: Couple in 50's;
$500,000 home; $650,000 in three rental housing properties.
http://wp.me/pcq1o-1rU
October 20th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
#69 Debt lover,
You got it all backwards. Ironic that you are post #69.
I fine it fascinating that you bulls have moved from wrong to shameless idiots. The debt that our society has taken on over the past few decades is a drug that is ruining us in ways we have not even begun to understand.
You are no better than a drug dealer. Pushing crack in the form of Real Estate debt. I can't wait for the end of your kind.
October 20th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
80 logic Says:
October 20th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
@Best place on meth:
Good Costner movie?
No. Such. Thing.
========================
You forgot Waterworld
October 20th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Hookers are renters
By the hour mind you.
October 20th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
October Projections for month totals
Days elapsed so far 13
Days remaining 7
Average Sales this month 120
Average Listings this month 204
Projected sell/list 58.7%
SALES
Projected month end total 2394 +/- 109
95% Conf Interval lower bound 2285
95% Conf Interval upper bound 2503
NEW LISTINGS
Projected month end total 4078 +/- 145
95% Conf Interval lower bound 3933
95% Conf Interval upper bound 4223
MONTHS OF INVENTORY
Inventory as of September 30th 15401
MoI at this sales pace 6.43
Note: This is a simple linear projection of month end totals.
This provides the answer to the question
"What will month end totals be, if things continue
on the same pace we've seen so far this month?"
October 20th, 2010 at 11:51 am
@Capitulation: Could the recent high sell lists and the stubborn prices be caused by capitulating bears? Many who have waited through 10 years of manic boom times,
10 years?
October 20th, 2010 at 11:50 am
@Best place on meth:
Good Costner movie?
No. Such. Thing.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:47 am
@Capitulation:
Capitulation of the bears?
Doubt it. Would make a good Kevin Costner movie though.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:21 am
The present level of household debt is “excessive,” the report said. Economic fundamentals justify a debt-to-income ratio close to 140%.
Wait so 146 is excessive but 140 is economic fundamental?
Is that right?
October 20th, 2010 at 11:15 am
"I suspect many bears are saying “F*** it! I don’t care any more, I’m just going to buy. At least then the mental turmoil is over.”
I doubt it.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Household debt in Canada has become “excessive” and could swell further into record territory as interest rates remain abnormally low for an extended period, warned Toronto-Dominion Bank in a report released Wednesday.
<a href="http://www.financialpost.com/news/Canadians+debt+trap+deepens/3701928/story.html" rel="nofollow">Canadians' debt trap deepens
October 20th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Could the recent high sell lists and the stubborn prices be caused by capitulating bears? Many who have waited through 10 years of manic boom times, are finally giving up. The average price has been over one million for over a year and there is no drop on the horizon.
I suspect many bears are saying "F*** it! I don't care any more, I'm just going to buy. At least then the mental turmoil is over."
If that is the case, capitulation of the bears is always the mark of a market top.
October 20th, 2010 at 10:47 am
@Debt Lover:
>>>Morally, the normative order is such that you are cast as “losers” and “undesirables” by potential mates, family, friends, and strangers, and you get the poor look when you acknowledge your renting status…<<<
Are there actually people in existence in this town who look down on renters?
That's so douchy, thank god I've never met one.
I wouldn't give the time of day to such a person, let alone associate with them. Even if it was a family member.
October 20th, 2010 at 10:34 am
New Listings 230
Price Changes 88
Sold Listings 139
October 20th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Debt Lover = Mark Carney?
October 20th, 2010 at 9:36 am
The simple answer HISTORY.
See the US for the most recent history lesson. They have even more breaks for the home owner. Why did things collapse? Why doesn't the US government just adjust things more towards the home owner and re-inflate? They're trying but it doesn't work. Same as Japan, same as history has taught us (us being those who pay attention) over and over again.
October 20th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Look at you bears…
Fighting against a mammoth system that is geared towards the homeowner..
Financially, all the tax breaks and incentives go to homeowners…
Politically, politicians care about homeowners not renters because the perception is that they are stable and tied to the community, not transient dead beat renters…
Morally, the normative order is such that you are cast as "losers" and "undesirables" by potential mates, family, friends, and strangers, and you get the poor look when you acknowledge your renting status…
When the political, media and financial establishment is geared towards homeowners, what makes you think that your patience and prudent financial planning will make a difference?
Do you really think you few contrarians can cash in when the entire system is opposed to you?
October 20th, 2010 at 8:32 am
Oh no bears…
The ever improving list sell ratios shows that the media has done its job, and everyone is interested in buying a home…
All is safe and secure…
Keep waiting bears…
Things are going back up and up this month..
October 20th, 2010 at 8:26 am
66 VancouverGuy(a)
Mark Carney was seen at YVR with Tsur counting how may flights arrive from Asia.
That's the methodology they use.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:18 am
A great article on the Depression 2.0:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-idepr…
October 20th, 2010 at 8:11 am
In regards to what proportion of GDP comes from real estate, I would not include owner-occupied dwelling GDP in that figure, as that is just the equivalent rent that people would pay if they did not own their own home. Sure, that is derived from real estate, but not so much from the "real estate industry" as just from the fact that people need housing. What is more relevant is what proportion of GDP is derived from the buying, selling, management or construction of real estate (those functions should take a severe hit in a protracted downturn).
2.8% of GDP comes from residential and non-residential building construction (infrastructure construction should not be cyclical in the same way).
0.9% of GDP comes from rental and leasing services.
4.5% of GDP comes from leasing services in general. I would say that this is not very dependent on housing prices or the cyclical nature of the housing market because at the moment there is a massive gap between rents and house prices.
3.0% of GDP comes from other finance, insurance, real estate management services, etc. No idea how much of that is actually derived from cyclical real estate.
So, excluding knock-on effects, there isn't actually a massive proportion of the economy that is real estate dependent. HOWEVER, what makes the economy massively real estate dependent is the WEALTH EFFECT of high real estate prices. By my math, a 40% decline in Metro Vancouver real estate prices would lead to the elimination of wealth equivalent to 104% of BC GDP. That will have a massive impact on the economy. To me, that is what will really kill things here. And that's just for housing prices in Vancouver, not the entire province.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:11 am
Housing boom blamed on subsidies
Landlords complain
http://www.theprovince.com/business/Housing+boom+…
October 20th, 2010 at 8:00 am
@manna from heaven:
Well Goldberg got the second part right IMHO.
However the first part can go into the Hall of Shame along with this gem:
Great stooges think alike.
October 20th, 2010 at 8:00 am
61 Anonymous
FYI This decade, and about 6 months ago.
Also read this
http://www.theprovince.com/business/Vancouver+Pol…
October 20th, 2010 at 7:51 am
@gork:
Were people protesting when the current CoV union contracts were awarded in 2007?
Why not?
Were people protesting when the city committed itself to backstop the OV in the same year?
Why not?
Did CoV voters simply choose not to have the Owelympics in 2003?
Why not?
Nobody thinks about the hangover until after the party.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:47 am
@NO – LYMPICS:
"I recall a VPD recruiting ad that stated new VPD officer should expect $15,000 year on OVERTIME . "
What decade was that in?
October 20th, 2010 at 7:43 am
"In the case of Metro Vancouver, Goldberg said he sides with those who do not believe the city is in a bubble, and he is doubtful that the capital flowing into B.C. from investors, such as wealthy buyers from Mainland China, is cause for concern."
Goldberg is the dean emeritus at the Sauder School of Business at the University of B.C.
With Goldberg at the helm and Prof. Sommerville teaching, the Sauder School of Business must be cranking out some powerful thinkers!
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/World+real+e…
October 20th, 2010 at 7:42 am
Regarding Tsur's "forced savings" dodge, that just shows the kind of myopia most economists exhibit. Buyers end up with a higher net worth, therefor buying is better. After all, someone renting for 50% as much isn't going to be stressed about money all the time and thus won't pinch every penny. And obviously Tsur puts no value on things like family vacations, quality of life or even just the peace of mind that comes from not worrying about money.
Ask people on their death bed what they regret, and I bet even the economists won't say they wish they'd been forced to save more.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:37 am
are people going to revolt against the mayor for this major screw-up?
*******
Hahahahahhahah….
No revolt my recent new arrival…
This is not the EU where your overpaid civil servants strike because they want more than 6 weeks vacation..
This is not the EU where your economies have gone to hell in a hand basket because of your engrained sense of entitlement to retire at 55 with full pensions….
This is not the EU where youth revolt because its an engrained tradition and right of passage…
Governments come and go, each with their fiscal mismanagement and scandals, and the world continues on…
In some years, the private sector gets overpaid for the "value" that they add. For example, paying 18 year old construction workers six figures because they could swing a hammer (note the 8 year BC boom); giving corporate management massive bonuses after share prices tumble (and sometimes taxpayer funded bailouts); giving bankers taxpayer funded bailouts because they did such a great job of managing finances; booth babes in mining pulling in six figures from private placements because they look good; techies making millions off of creating non-existent web companies (circa 2000); and the list can go on and on.
The public sector only looks overpaid after the private sector shoots itself in the foot, and after the good days where they failed to save kick in.
Is anyone going to revolt and protest over these examples of private sector "screw-ups?"
I will be sure to join you in protesting the City of Vancouver budget shortfalls if you join me in protesting the next bank of GM bailout?
October 20th, 2010 at 7:21 am
56 gork
Well COV Mayor asks for input, but already sates that public safety(which east up the lions share of the budget) is not on the table.
Why not?
Why is VPD Chief Jim Chu getting over $300,000
Tell the VPD and Firemen they either take a pay cut or layofss will commence.I recall a VPD recruiting ad that stated new VPD officer should expect $15,000 year on OVERTIME .
WTF does it ssay they shouldn't take a hit , everyone else is.
Start somewhere, or they will continue to get away with this rip off.
October 20th, 2010 at 7:01 am
are people going to revolt against the mayor for this major screw-up?
Screwing up in a major fashion on the OV for example, then handing out increases incl. self (whilst others around the globe are slashing public sector dramatically) then asking the public to pick up cost of the increase in their wages through a tax increase???? WTF is wrong here?
Talking to my colleagues at the water-cooler, one prevalent issue seems to be that people don't know ore care *at all* about things like this. Too uninformed or too naive to realize they get ripped off.
I'm from EU lived here 6 years and have to say that what pisses me of most about this place is that people don't give a rats ass about what's happening around them. People seem to accept everything our public all stars are doing, maybe because all they care about is RE and as long as it pays, why worry?
This only works on Wallstreet otr in the Vancouver public sector: you screw up badly, spend other peoples money, all of it..worse you spend more than is available but yet you reward yourselves with increases in pay.
That being said, does anyone know if there'll be an organized protest against this budget shortfall issue caused by greedy public *servants*?
…OV fail, budget shortfalls, unjustified public pay increases – doesn't that warrant a protest or revolt by the people?
Reduction in public wages is THE way to go. Can't have private sector-like wages plus all the perks on top.
…and give unions the middle finger.
…and stop the systematic health care exploitation.
October 20th, 2010 at 6:43 am
G&M confirms that house prices don't matter. It's all and only about the intrest rate and monthly payment…Gee…..why couldn't it be that easy?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/per…
This should give the home sellers and RE pimps a good reason to raise prices even more….after all…if you have an extra $50 bucks after taxes you can leverage it out to at least another $100,000 at zero percent…..right?
October 20th, 2010 at 6:40 am
52 Best place on meth:
That's exactly what a good lawyer(or determined citizen) does…rolls up the sleeves and finds some dusty old law on the books.
People are under the delusion/illusion that laws are consistent, which is BS.
October 20th, 2010 at 6:40 am
@4SlicesofCheese:
"That’s quite abit lower then similar properties in the area. Not to mention the actual prices of comparable units in the same building."
I thought under the BC Tenancy Act that the deposit cannot be more than half of the first month's rent. So given that they list both "rent" and "depsoit" as $951 one must assume that's bi-weekly rent, or something dodgy is going on.
October 20th, 2010 at 6:37 am
The twists and turns in the clusterfuck know as the U.S. real estate markets continue.
Pre-sale buyers now using a 1968 law to get out of their purchases have developers crying in their cranteenies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/nyregion/21cond…
Woe is real estate.
October 20th, 2010 at 6:33 am
Sorry off topic but has anyone used or heard of rentalsbc.com
Their site has some very low rent prices
ie. http://www.rentalsbc.com/1t2m20listingdetail3375….
in the Hudson building for $951/month.
That's quite abit lower then similar properties in the area. Not to mention the actual prices of comparable units in the same building.