Vancouver Condo Info

I don't think it was ignorant. I do know a thing or two about Victoria real estate. I also know a thing or two about running a business and I do employ people.

I wouldn't run a business and employ 5 people for only $65k per year. It's not worth the stress and the amount of work. If you have the skills to do that, you can easily find a job that pays $65k per year for less work, less stress, more benefits and vacation.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 4:28 am 43

@Anonymous:

I totally get it. I endorse affordable real estate. Do you? Will you vote for the correct parties in the coming municipal election to enable lower priced real estate to come to market? WIll you support dropping the Property Transfer Tax? Will you support the City lowering DCCs?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Devore Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 4:29 am 44

@fixie guy: I would agree. I don't see this piece as bearish. It's true that it shows the darker side of Van real estate, but that's about it. It's just two loser families that couldn't hack it here leaving town.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Not much of a name.. Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 4:35 am 45

@Dave: Depends on the industry that the business is in. Take retail. I know many retail business owners who employ numerous people, but they aren't getting rich. They get by, but I know that many aren't able to afford houses at today's prices.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

patriotz Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 4:43 am 46

@Dave:

"WIll you support dropping the Property Transfer Tax? Will you support the City lowering DCCs?"

Dave gets it all right. He knows that the above taxes are entirely at the expense of the developers/sellers, since sale prices net of taxes are determined by what buyers are willing and able to pay. Drop these taxes and the benefits go entirely to the developers/sellers.

I'm on record on what I think the provincial government can do (the city can do nothing) to get prices down and that's a 100% tax on RE capital gains.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

jesse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 4:44 am 47

@Dave: "WIll you support dropping the Property Transfer Tax? Will you support the City lowering DCCs?"

No and no. I would go the other route: significantly increasing residential property taxes and retaining earnings for land purchases when prices are lower and "nobody wants to build". Property tax breaks for purpose-built rentals, screw the free market landlord clusterf*ck that plagues downtown right now.

I'm sure we could find common ground on a zoning and building code overhaul. I think those of all persuasions are starting to beat the drum louder on that front, and I think way more drastic measures need to be taken than dabbling in basement suites (still inspected and obviously semi-legal) and laneway housing.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

jesse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 4:47 am 48

@patriotz: "100% tax on RE capital gains"

Hey, are cap gains still valid on flips?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 4:48 am 49

Lefty, lefty, lefty… you are. That's not how the free market works. It all gets passed on to the buyer. There is no free lunch in economics. The last pocket the money comes from will be the developer. Trust me on this.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Not much of a name.. Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 5:10 am 50

@Anonymous: Exactly. The real estate market is far from free. Take away CMHC and that would have a greater impact on prices than local development costs, PTT, etc.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

patriotz Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 5:10 am 51

Dave:

"It all gets passed on to the buyer."

Could you explain to us how a capital gains tax on RE sales can get passed on to the buyer?

Let's just start with the current ordinary capital gains income tax on investment properties. Since equivalent properties owned by investors and by owner-occupiers (who don't pay capital gains) are going to sell for the same price, how can the investor pass on his taxes to the buyer?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Yalie Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 5:12 am 52

@Dave:

Lefty, lefty, lefty… you are. That’s not how the free market works. It all gets passed on to the buyer. There is no free lunch in economics. The last pocket the money comes from will be the developer. Trust me on this.

Fail. I'm far from a lefty myself – and you couldn't be more wrong. In bubbly real estate markets like ours, the price of land acts as a buffer. If the government suddenly put a big fat tax on all real estate transactions, the retail price wouldn't budge. Instead, the land portion of the sale would be reduced by the amount of the tax.

In Vancouver, the selling price is determined by what the buyer is willing to pay for a plot of land in the Best Place On Earth, not by the replacement/build price.

You would be right if the land value were an insignificant percentage of the total cost. But in Vancouver, the inflated prices are all in the land value, which is why your "economic argument" fails.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 5:33 am 53

@Yalie:

That's not true. Prices aren't mostly in the land value. Building costs are still higher.

If the government taxed it the way you suggest, then nobody would sell. You would be better off owning the land and leasing it out. The result of your policy would be a dramatic drop in new home construction resulting from a lack of developable land. Guess what happens to prices then?

There is a lot of talk right now about solidifying an industrial land base in the City and limiting redevelopment of such lands. Guess what the result of that will be?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Patiently Waiting Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 5:39 am 54

@Devore: Its bearish when it says the high cost of real estate negatively impacts the economy. They don't come right out and say "prices are coming down" but there is something implicit there.

Most notable, was the lack of bullishness. In fact, bullishness was criticized as maybe selling a bill of goods. To me that was the most amazing remark in the piece.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

jesse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 5:40 am 55

@Yalie: "the inflated prices are all in the land value"

Rising building costs and taxes will, eventually, cause marginal land to remain un-built and this will drive up prices. But this is nowhere near true today by a long shot.

Let me say this about "passing on costs"… a dyed-in-the-wool businessperson will factor in construction costs and taxes, and require a decent return for his/her investors. There are lots of other places to make money; Vancouver's just another row on the spreadsheet.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

jesse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 5:44 am 56

@Dave: "There is a lot of talk right now about solidifying an industrial land base in the City and limiting redevelopment of such lands."

Sure… why not just rezone existing residential land? That would boost construction activity by adding density, and give much-needed family homes to those forced to relocate to the suburbs. Coquitlam is rezoning SFH for multiplex, I think a blanket rezone of such in Vancouver is long overdue.

What do you say, Dave? Denser housing = more construction = higher land values = win for everyone!

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 5:46 am 57

Yup. It's as simple as that. If you can't make a proper return you won't be building. Eventually that limits supply, which causes prices to go up, which then encourages supply.

If we want more supply to be produced, we need to lower costs for the developer. Governments have a role in this because real estate fees and taxes are a significant factor. Governments can encourage the construction of more affordable units by simply allowing them to get built.

It doesn't affect me either way. But I would rather see more people in Vancouver be able to afford housing.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 5:55 am 58

@Troll:

I am talking about multi-unit, which is where the volume of new home development is in Vancouver. SFH development is fairly small.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

jesse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:11 am 59

@Dave: "If we want to generate supply quickly, the only way is to build upwards."

Still, I say rezone. If it's true the only way "is to build upwards", the so-called NIMBYs are a detriment to the long-term sustainability of the city. To that end, the greater good — namely ensuring the city grows into a vibrant, diverse, and commercial centre — requires that density be increased close to the core, namely the west side.

There is already density there in the way of basement suites, so forcing explicit density increases isn't really changing much other than increasing the mix for single families without the burden of being part-time landlords.

Look at San Fran or cities in Yerp for inspiration: detached dwellings have no place in the central core, it's denser, not bigger, accommodations that should be the goal.

Demand should be focused on enabling those who can contribute to the city, not on those speculating on price gains, who quite frankly produce more blight than benefit. If Vision/NPA are truly interested in affordable housing they need to step up to the plate, not diddle with specious pet projects concentrated at lower income tiers. They can make — ram through — relatively simple zoning changes that allow more thoughtful density increases close to the core.

I'm not holding my breath, though. There's something a bit unsettling with the affordability platforms of the three main civic slates. My guess is a look at their donation sources would clear up any confusion.

I still don't get it: why would developers be against rezoning? Maybe you can help me out. I'm asking an honest question because it seems like an issue, if addressed in a bold way, that could resonate with a lot of people (and donors).

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Not much of a name.. Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:16 am 60

@Dave:

Easier said than done. There is no shortage of Nimby’s in Vancouver. Draw a line down Fraser Street from North to South. You don’t have a chance of densifying a SFH neighbour west of that line.

**Cough** Cambie corridor **cough**

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:24 am 61

I'm not sure I follow the question about rezoning. Can you elaborate? Who is against what?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

jesse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:25 am 62

@Not much of a name…: "Cambie corridor" Oh no you did.

Density increases have been going on since inception; anyone with a sense of history longer than a generation can attest to this (cough Kits, Fairview, Mt. Pleasant, West End). It's time for the "rest" to step up. And we're talking about close to half the land mass of Vancouver that's underutilized, at least so say price signals…

Given that so many areas of the City have been densified over the course of the last 50 years, doesn't it seem a bit odd that certain neighbourhoods are, well, offside for rezoning all of a sudden? Why do people think they're paying high prices (even when prices were lower 10 years ago) in the first place?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:25 am 63

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/04/mi…

Exactly. The density proposed is a joke and could easily be double or triple. Compare that to density in Burnaby along transit routes.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

jesse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:27 am 64

@Dave: Do you think giving a lot the option of rezoning SFD for MFD is a good idea? I'm trying to understand any arguments why it's not a good idea from a developer/investor perspective.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Troll Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:31 am 65

@Dave:

I am talking about multi-unit, which is where the volume of new home development is in Vancouver. SFH development is fairly small.

OK, so turf the PPT on condos/thomes but it leave it on SFH and we're all good and affordability housing for everyone?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Troll Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:34 am 66

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Devore Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:44 am 67

@Dave:

If we want to generate supply quickly, the only way is to build upwards.

So far most of that upwards supply is 1 bedrooms and studios.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:46 am 68

You can rezone under present rules. It just has to follow the normal process, which takes time.

I assume you are suggesting the City change the existing SFH residential zoning to allow greater density. If this is what you are referring to, then I would be opposed to it. It wouldn't be workable and it would create one hell of a mess. Firstly, you can't just density a single 25 or 33 foot lot into multi-family. Secondly, such a plan impacts everybody on the street.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Troll Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:48 am 69

@Devore:

So far most of that upwards supply is 1 bedrooms and studios.

So what's the problem? Studios for singles and couples. And when you start the family, you upgrade to a 1 bedroom for the kids. 3 bedroom places are so last generation.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:49 am 70

@Troll:

No thanks. That would still punish families for buying SFHs.

Taxing transactions is nothing more than a life tax. When you are in your 20's a bachelor or 1 BR apartment is just fine. When you get married, you might want 2 BRs. When you have kids, you might need a townhouse or SFH. When you retire, you might want to downsize back into an apartment. If we tax people at every stage, it just creates a whole drag on the real estate market. Keeping the transaction costs down is good for families and society IMO.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

jesse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 6:57 am 71

@Dave: "you can’t just density a single 25 or 33 foot lot into multi-family"

Why not? Front-back works fine.

Besides, I'm more talking about the wide palatial lots on the west side, you know the "standard" 50' frontage. Those could be duplex or multiplex no problem. As I mentioned, Coquitlam is doing this in traditionally SFH streets, so I don't see why a city on the outskirts is densifying faster than the core.

And let's not forget, there are already MFDs in SFD lots, and the City is turning a blind eye to them. At the very least they should clean up that mess on their inspection docket for all new construction.

And as I mentioned, residents's objections are secondary to the City's greater good. We're not talking about breaking precedent. Lots of neighbourhoods have made the switch to higher density, I'm just proposing accelerating that to lower-density neighbourhoods and following the land price signals, and yes, optimizing and streamlining the existing rezoning process with a blanket city-wide covenant seems like a good toe-in.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Not much of a name.. Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:00 am 72

@Dave: So how do you propose that gov'ts make up the short fall from eliminating taxes on RE? Eliminating the PTT would blow a $800M+ hole in the provincial budget. Perfect.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:02 am 73

I don't think front/back works well. I wouldn't want to live off of an alley, or at least own that lot.

The other problem west of Fraser is that there really aren't many tear down lots. For the most part, you would have to demolish a building worth something, then build something bigger. I don't see where the profit is, nor do I see affordable housing being the result.

Coquitlam has bigger lots and cheaper land. I can see how it works there.

I agree though that densifying the City is better than on the periphery. I still think the only way is to take large lots and build something big.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Vansanity Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:07 am 74

@Dave:

I'm convinced. I will go and buy a home now. Thank you for your words of wisdom.

#caman!

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:18 am 75

I wouldn't eliminate it overnight. Let's cut it over a ten year period.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

oneangryslav@yahoo.c Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:19 am 76

@Dave:

I agree though that densifying the City is better than on the periphery. I still think the only way is to take large lots and build something big.

I completely disagree with the part in bold. Why can't we have row housing instead? Density would increase, but homeowners would benefit by not having to pay strata/condo fees to some strata corporation. You wouldn't happen to be in this line of business, would you, Dave?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Anonnymous Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:19 am 77

Still at Quintet line up..now into overtime…$75 hour.

Good thing they supply Depends.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

jesse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:30 am 78

@Dave: "For the most part, you would have to demolish a building worth something, then build something bigger. I don’t see where the profit is, nor do I see affordable housing being the result."

Well based on construction volumes, there are more than a few teardowns. It would probably be a case of requiring, not giving an option for, construction of duplex. This is a longer-term play but so was Kits in the '70s now look at it.

This is a simple argument to increase density in areas long overdue seeing density increases given their proximity to the core, and are pricing as such, in any case.

I think I see the issue pretty clearly now; thanks for the conversation.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

bearabroad Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:35 am 79

This pretty much sums up why ive been toughing it out in tax free Caymans for the past couple years. Sure, BC is great (mostly in the summer when it's not raining) but I refuse to get paid a minimum professional wage and scrape to afford a house in areas of Vancouver that i have no desire to live.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Not much of a name.. Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:35 am 80

@Dave: Again, how do you replace the income? That's still a $800M+ hole in the budget in ten years time. Higher income taxes, higher PST, etc? By reducing/eliminating it gradually still doesn't eliminate the need to replace it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:42 am 81

http://dancingczars.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/idah…

I think it is crazy to have a tax that people amortize into a mortgage. It won't be an $800MM loss. A portion of that money will go directly back into the economy rather than interest payments to a bank.

If we do have to increase taxes, then I would rather see a consumption tax.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Troll Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:46 am 82

@Dave:

If we tax people at every stage, it just creates a whole drag on the real estate market. Keeping the transaction costs down is good for families and society IMO.

Well that sounds folksy and nice doesn't it? Hard to argue with that. But it's a different argument than you put forth originally, in that we need to reduce taxes and fees to bring back affordable housing. In fact they have minimal bearing on SFH affordability and you haven't really made a good case that it would help on multi-family either. We've just witnessed a decade where prices have doubled across the board, taxes and fees are not the cause.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

patriotz Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 7:59 am 83

@Dave:

"If you can’t make a proper return you won’t be building."

That's right, so how do developers get a proper return? They pay a price for land that lets them make a profit after building costs, taxes, and all other expenses.

If developers' costs increase while buyers are unwilling to pay more for the finished product, or, if the price buyers are willing to pay goes down – as happens in every RE bust, the developer is willing to pay less for land and land costs go down.

Land owners have to sell for less because their only choices are between selling, or not selling and paying property taxes and getting no earnings.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Anonymouse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:01 am 84

@patriotz: "Land owners have to sell for less because their only choices are between selling, or not selling and paying property taxes and getting no earnings."

… or not selling, turning the land into a "community garden" and being property tax exempt.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

patriotz Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:03 am 85

@Dave:

I think I've brought this up before, but could you explain to us why Montreal, which has both property taxes and income taxes that are far higher than Vancouver, and has at least as much bureaucracy, has house prices that are less than 1/2 as much?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Oilman Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:11 am 86

@patriotz:

'I think I’ve brought this up before, but could you explain to us why Montreal, which has both property taxes and income taxes that are far higher than Vancouver, and has at least as much bureaucracy, has house prices that are less than 1/2 as much?'

1)They're not the Best Place on Earth

2)They're not running out of land

3)They don't have our weather

4)Their mountains are the Monteregion Hills….so they're hills

5)They have no seawall

6)They don't have HAM

Do I need to continue?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

bubba Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:27 am 87

Idaho and Utah Governors sell out their constituents to the Chinese

10 Sep 2011 – Idaho and Utah Governors sell out their constituents to the Chinese … and being put on the fast track to citizenship, is an incredible tool to help …

Like or Dislike: 0 0

chilled Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:30 am 88

In regards to the news story, how the hell can Global BC spend years pimping real estate and then turn around and pretend they have no culpability in the result?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Been There Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:36 am 89

Idaho and Utah Governors sell out their constituents to the Chinese

http://dancingczars.wordpress……e-chinese/

10 Sep 2011 – Idaho and Utah Governors sell out their constituents to the Chinese … and being put on the fast track to citizenship, is an incredible tool to help …

________

Uuumm…we already beat them to the punch…its called the Immigrant Investor Program….and we sold our citizenship much cheaper until recently (when it went from 800k to 1.6 million)

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Devore Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:41 am 90

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/business/i…

why Montreal, [...] has house prices that are less than 1/2 as much?

No mountains or ocean. How can you ski in the morning, kayak across the pond for lunch, and golf in the afternoon all in one day?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Anonymous134282 Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:42 am 91

@Been There: "we sold our citizenship much cheaper until recently (when it went from 800k to 1.6 million)"

No, the "investors" only need to have a net worth of 1.6 million. (Which is easily forged, I might add). They need to make a 5-year loan of $800k to the Canadian government. But this can be financed at ultra-low rates, since the loan is guaranteed by the full force of the Canadian government. So, at 2% interest for 5 years, the cost is only… $80k.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Troll Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:48 am 92

http://www.rebgv.org/housing-price-index

Well, there you have it. Higher listings, fairly strong sales and prices are still up pretty much across the board in Sept.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

vangrl Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:55 am 93

it's o.k, the president of the Victoria real estate board says:

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south…

Like or Dislike: 0 0

vangrl Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 8:57 am 94

http://www.straight.com/article-476826/vancouver/…

Like or Dislike: 0 0

vangrl Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 9:01 am 95

Maggie says "good time for buyers!"

http://www.vancouverreflections.com/vancouver-dow…

Like or Dislike: 0 0

vangrl Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 9:09 am 96

and I thought OV was bad:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Stuck+betwee…

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 9:19 am 97

1. Land

2. Freeway

3. Different Culture

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 9:21 am 98

http://www.globaltvbc.com/union+urges+vancouver+m…

But they don't have to sell. You are missing the whole supply side implications of your taxation approach. Look around you to see what happens to prices when land supply is limited. And your solution is to limit it even more.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Global= objective jo Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 9:23 am 99

This just in…. Global starts the 5 o'clock news with a piece on what a crap month September was for Vanouver RE. Even had the talking head from the REBGV confessing that sellers will need to up the curb appeal and even "sharpen their pencils" to make a sale….

All I can say is congrats to Gordholio! It looks like your relentless pursuit of objectivity (combined with some tepid numbers), has finally brought Global around to at least glancing at the other side of the coin. I particularly liked the follow up story that touched on unaffordability for the 1st time buyers. Apparently about half of them are into mommy and daddy for help on the DP or to co-sign the mortgage. No better way to thank your parents for years of sacrifice than by setting their retirement plan back 10-15 years!!!

I would love to see an 18k party in October….

Like or Dislike: 0 0

patriotz Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 9:28 am 100

@Dave:

"You are missing the whole supply side implications of your taxation approach."

What, you mean they will stop making land?

Land owners always have two choices. Sell for what they can get for it, or not sell and pay property taxes.

Homework: why have land prices dropped as much as 90% in places like Las Vegas and Florida, when as you say, land owners don't have to sell.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

jesse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 9:29 am 101

CBC: 7 Metro Vancouver mayors back new gas tax

A proposed gas tax hike in Metro Vancouver will likely be approved this week, according to a joint statement issued by a group of seven area mayors on Tuesday.

The statement was issued on behalf of Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts, Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore, Langley Mayor Peter Fassbender, Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart, District of North Vancouver Mayor Richard Walton and West Vancouver Mayor Pam Goldsmith-Jones. The seven mayors represent more than 70 per cent of the region’s population.

The mayors say they will vote in favour of the two-cent-per-litre gas tax hike this Friday.

The money will be used to help pay for TransLink projects like the Evergreen Line and increased bus service south of the Fraser.

Well, I guess it beats raising the PTT

Like or Dislike: 0 0

painted turtle Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 9:39 am 102

Larry's last post is bearish.

And look at this desperate seller:
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?proper…

Like or Dislike: 0 0

patriotz Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:16 am 103

@painted turtle:

HaHaHa

"Priced well BELOW MARKET VALUE!"

Of course if it was priced below market value, someone would have already bid more than the listing price, by definition.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

chilled Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:21 am 104

Tonight's Global BC story on the topic is worth catching. Especially the part with Susie Shin, the financial planner, bustling to get into Vancouver's real estate market. The story demonstrates one thing and one things only – you don't have to be much more than a moron to be a financial planner. (She's hot though!!)

Like or Dislike: 0 0

midnite toker Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:22 am 105

@bearabroad: hook a brother up! Seriously, How did you manage that?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

bubba Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:32 am 106

Gas Tax….f*ck em…espcially that transit unions want it

Union urges Vancouver mayors to accept gas taxes to pay for more transit

Gravy sucking pigs. Lay em off.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Boombust Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:37 am 107

Forget about the Global piece on people exiting the province, or unable to afford to buy a place in the GVRD…to me, the most interesting story on GLOBAL was the name chane the BC Liberals are now undergoing.

CHRISTY is now front and centre on their logo. What a laugh!

Stoopid bitch.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

midnite toker Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:40 am 108

@Dave: Montreal is on an island, they're not making any more land either.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Best place on meth Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:43 am 109

Global's funniest bit tonight was Cam Muir once again spewing complete bullshit with a straight face. Well, a slight hint of a smirk actually.

The mangina said, get this, that immigrant investors who came to Canada 5 years ago were now getting their investment (or as I like to call it – head tax) back from the government and were putting the money straight into Vancouver real estate.

See, when you're a real estate cheerleader you can say anything you want on Global news. No questions asked.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

paulb. Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:44 am 110

New Listings 284

Price Changes 164

Sold Listings 145

TI:16605

http://www.laurenandpaul.ca

Like or Dislike: 0 0

bubba Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:45 am 111

Trader Tells Tells BBC Goldman Rules The World – Eurozone Rescue Plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnL_3xgCIC4

==================================================

Apparently this is going viral….

PS Nice tie patriotz/jesse

Like or Dislike: 0 0

gordholio Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:55 am 112

Indeed an interesting first 12 minutes to Global's 6:00 news tonite. Starts with an Amanda Knox presser, then moves to gas gouging, slumping stock markets, and then housing. The first report was typical Global bullshit – Cam Muir and his used car moustache, and the ever-annoying Chris Gailus telling us, inconceivably, that increased listings and stagnant prices since "the spring" are indicative of a BUYER'S MARKET!! Yay! Everyone grab their non-existent money!

Then Tanya's second report. Again, poking its head into places Global doesn't go very often. Again, reeling off the numbers that support the conclusion – it's virtually impossible for young people to buy in overpriced Vancouver.

Yet you can feel the report's been "tempered" so as not to impact Global's unholy alliance with its real estate industry overlord.

Still, it could be worse. In the last two nights, Global is at least hinting at housing (and cost of living) reality.

One last thing. I was in both London Drugs and Future Shop today. And it was dead. A dead, barren void of nothingness. Funny, I then went over to Wal-Mart. Substantially busier. No surprise there.

However, I was drawn to a display in the meat aisle. Chicken drumsticks for $5. Problem is that I can buy three times as many drumsticks for the same price just over the border. So I called over an employee and asked him why the price of Vancouver drumsticks was so much more expensive. I half expected him to say "Because it's different here. Buy now or be priced out next week!"

Our conversation was affable but somewhat loud and a few other people gathered around to join in. Three of the five, including the Wal-Mart employee, readily admitted to shopping regularly in the US.

Anyhow, I ultimately directed the subject to housing – of course – and the pain just oozed out of everyone. Even a year ago I'd talk to people about housing and there'd be a resignation in their voices. "Yeah, it's expensive but it's the BPOE so what are you going to do." Now, it's, "Yeah, it's expensive. I can't handle it anymore."

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Patiently Waiting Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:14 am 113

@chilled: Shin's not buying now, though, and is dismissive of what's shown to her. While she says she'll wait to save for a bigger down-payment, I think she's a silent bear. If she believed prices are going up, she could find a way to buy.

I'm not sure why Shin didn't come out and say it. Maybe she doesn't want to offend the locals

Like or Dislike: 0 0

fixie guy Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:16 am 114

113 bubba Says: "Gas Tax….f*ck em…espcially that transit unions want it"

Morality taxes like this are standard operating for lazy administrators. No need for research, planning or innovation when 'something can be done' with the stroke of a pen. Bonus points for increased revenue from vehicular sinners. "Excellent work, who's buying lunch?" Now back to important work like approving the right shade of teal glass for the next cookie cutter Yaletown tower.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Patiently Waiting Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:19 am 115

One westside agent on Global News mentioned HAM. He said there is far fewer of them, and they are low balling.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

painted turtle Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 12:00 pm 116

Today, a great piece about Vancouver!

http://www.greaterfool.ca/

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 12:44 pm 117

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-de…

I assumed the business wasn’t retail as it could be moved.

I’ll let her answer if she wants. I could be wrong because I just don’t know the nature of the business.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Best place on meth Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 12:45 pm 118

Would somebody please call Lloyd and let him know that demand #9 is going to be a bit of a problem?

Lloyd J Hart 508-687-9153

Like or Dislike: 0 0

jesse Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 12:51 pm 119

@Dave: “There is no free lunch in economics”

The nearest Vancouver has is “land value component of asset”.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

rp1 Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 1:04 pm 120

#95 @chilled: "In regards to the news story, how the hell can Global BC spend years pimping real estate and then turn around and pretend they have no culpability in the result?"

Perhaps you're not familiar with what the media IS ?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Anonymous Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 1:06 pm 121

@Dave:

Lefty, lefty, lefty… you are. That’s not how the free market works. It all gets passed on to the buyer. There is no free lunch in economics.

Didn’t we have this debate a while back? Please define what you mean by a “free market.”

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Chip Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 1:09 pm 122

@Best place on meth:

End the fossil fuel economy now, forgive all debts, a trillion on reforestation etc etc.

What, no magical unicorns in every garden?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

McLovin Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 1:15 pm 123

So we are at 16,600 inventory with a min net +100 per day.

We have 19 more days left in the month. An 18K party is a given but can we dream of a 19K party?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 1:17 pm 124

The PTT isn’t a capital gains tax. You pay the tax when you buy property. It basically gets added to your mortgage.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

pricedoutfornow Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 1:41 pm 125

@gordholio:

Nice summary of tonight's Global. I think it's pretty much over when Global admits things like "listings up 20%" and "worst September in 10 years". Oh ya and the stock market's toast, European worries-all the better reason to buy a million dollar crack shack in Vancouver (with mommy and daddy's money)!

I have a feeling that this is finally IT.

But wait and see. We got tricked before (2008). Sshh…don't tell the bulls (yet).

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Troll Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 1:49 pm 126

@Dave:

That’s not true. Prices aren’t mostly in the land value. Building costs are still higher.

Even a cursory look at what’s for sale disproves that statement. Take E.Van for instance. Lot value for a basic 33×99 lot is ~$600K. Build a new house on that dirt and it sells for ~$900K. So the land value is two thirds of the price. EVERYTHING else, materials, labour, taxes and fees, profit is only a third.

If you are trying to convince people otherwise, not really doing a good job.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

Dave Says:
October 4th, 2011 at 1:52 pm 127