Vancouver Condo Info

135 Responses to “The Little Mountain that Couldn’t”

Cameron Lereah Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 12:14 am 1

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Yo! I am FIRST on the blog!

Yeah Bitchez!

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 2  37

Nicer Looking Than The Wheelchair Guy Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 1:10 am 2

From http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/news/2011/11/20/vision-celebrates-landslide-victory-laments-cope-defeat

“It’s surprising (the results) and the NPA used attack ads. Those do work, they managed to win two seats,. And they had no incumbents, so you have to give them credit for that.

“The reality is that developers and businesses are quite comfortable with Vison and Gregor Robertson.”

———————

From http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/vision-vancouver-backed-by-a-charity.html

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson’s Big Backer: A USA-Funded Charity?

———————

And from the “boys will be boys” file: http://www.richmondreview.com/news/136396633.html

Vancouver Mayor’s Gregor Robertson’s foster son facing drug, gun charges

———————

Is “the Gregor” just paying lip service to affordable housing to stay in power?

Does he even have a clue what the hell he’s doing?

Are the above links valid comments about his judgement, integrity, etc?

Vancouver voted him and his cronies in with a landslide. Now what?

If you’re voting down this post, please do post your comment.

Hot debate. What do you think? 14  11

patriotz Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 5:51 am 3

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/bc-housing-slowdown-signals-wider-slump/article4552373/

Mr. Muir said, “To see a substantial price decline, you need a macroeconomic shock or household financial disaster, writ large, which is what happened in the United States. You need a recession, high unemployment and extremely high interest rates, where people can’t afford to make their mortgage payments and houses get flooded on the market and there’s no one there to buy them because there are no jobs. But there’s no evidence of that here.”

No Cam, that’s not what happened in the US. What happened is that prices fell first and the macroeconomic shock, recession and unemployment were a result of that. And interest rates in the US today are a lot lower than at the market top in 2006.

As for evidence here, take a trip to Kelowna some time. Or just to Mission will do these days.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 103  1

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 5:56 am 4

UBC Master’s thesis on Little Mountain by Thomas Thomson (2010):

The Death and Life of the Little Mountain Housing Project: BC’s First Public Housing Community

http://hdl.handle.net/2429/30445

Abstract:

Opened in 1954, Vancouver’s Little Mountain Housing Project was the first public housing project in BC and among the oldest in Canada. For more than half a century, Little Mountain provided subsidized rental housing for low and moderate income families and seniors. Throughout its years, Little Mountain was at the forefront of housing policy in BC. Little Mountain’s initial development in the 1950s spelled out how the federal-provincial public housing partnership would operate in BC. In the 1970s Little Mountain was the first public housing project in Canada managed by a committee of tenants. And today Little Mountain continues to be on the leading edge of provincial housing policy as it is the first public housing project to be privatized and redeveloped under a new province-wide policy announced in 2007. Redevelopment and privatization have involved the displacement of 194 Little Mountain households and the demolition of all but one of the buildings at Little Mountain. The displacement of the tenants and the near total clearance of the large site are among some of the disturbing similarities between the redevelopment of Little Mountain and the old urban renewal programs of the mid-twentieth century. But unlike urban renewal, the redevelopment of Little Mountain is connected to neoliberal restructuring and the erosion of the welfare state. When Little Mountain is eventually rebuilt, it will feature a mixed-income community that will combine social housing tenants and market homeowners. Redevelopment has been justified, in part, on the basis that social mixing will create more social capital for the low-income families at Little Mountain. But this thesis shows that Little Mountain was already remarkably rich in social capital. In contrast to the stereotype of the ‘troubled housing project’, Little Mountain offered a very supportive, happy, and beautiful living environment. Ironically, displacement has isolated many of the tenants. Through an analysis of the distribution of benefits and losses of redevelopment to various relevant groups, this thesis shows that the Little Mountain tenants are being squeezed out of the benefits of redevelopment while bearing significant losses.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 26  0

pricedoutfornow Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:02 am 5

@patriotz:

Pretty clueless isn’t he? Or maybe just trying to rewrite history in a vain attempt to show how “it won’t happen here”. In regards to interest rates, I wonder if he’s referring to the teaser rates that reset to higher rates, causing people to not be able to make their mortgage payments? If rates go up here (will they ever?) we could see this happen here. But I’m sure tired of warning clients that rates are going up, like the boy who cried wolf.

Hot debate. What do you think? 14  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:14 am 6

I think you are correct to point out that the Little Mountain redevelopment is similar to the Olympic Village in that both are shaping up to be major boondoggles.

But the big difference from the Olympic Village is that the Little Mountain redevelopment involved the displacement of 194 families. Nobody was displaced from the Olympic Village. The Olympic Village development did not involve the direct displacement of anyone because nobody was living there, it was previously an industrial site. But Little Mountain was a residential community for more than half a century before the government came in to redevelop it. Thomson’s thesis shows how traumatic it was for many of these residents to be displaced. They were promised that they would be able to return to Little Mountain in about 2 years or by 2010. That promise clearly has not been fulfilled as we are in 2012 and ground has yet to break on the new development. It is important to understand that many of the residents of Little Mountain were very close with one another, having lived together for decades, many of them were related. Many of them relied on their neighbours to look after their kids or for rides to doctors appointments. This is the social capital Thomson talks about in his thesis. The government said that these tenants needed to be integrated into a mixed income community, ie, they needed an improvement in social capital. But displacement has left them feeling isolated and with less social capital as families have been sent across the region and separated from one another.

From Thomson’s (2010) thesis, page 262:

“The tenants who were closest with their neighbours at Little Mountain have experienced the greatest losses. One tenant was relocated to North Vancouver while the godmother of her children was relocated to Surrey. This tenant remarked, “Most of my friends, my network, my family were moved to Surrey.” Because there were multiple generations of the same family living at Little Mountain, relocation has literally broken apart families. Due to relocation, Brenda has been removed from her mother who lives in the seniors’ housing across the street and her daughter and grand-daughter who lived in another suite in the housing project. Brenda was relocated deep into the east side of Vancouver, while her daughter and granddaughter moved to the west side. Thus, four generations have been broken apart:

Tenant: “Before I was visiting my mum once, two, three times a day…In the project I would go, I am going to light a cigarette. Oh, I’ll throw on my shoes and go have one with my mum. Go up there and then in the summer when it was nice, go up there later. Now I’m lucky if I make it to pub day on Saturdays…If I’m not there she asks everybody where I am…When my daughter was living here, it was okay…I could go to her place…I’d say my relationship with my granddaughter has gone down 50% because I never get to see her.”

Brenda’s case demonstrates that the social impacts of relocation are not limited to the relocated Little Mountain tenants only—it is also those who were left behind in the surrounding neighbourhood. Brenda’s mother in the seniors’ housing across the street has lost her daughter, granddaughter, and great granddaughter, who were all relocated out of Little Mountain.

Having been removed from their friends and family at Little Mountain, the relocated tenants have had a hard time forging new connections in their new neighbourhoods. The tenants have found that their new neighbours are just not as friendly as their old neighbours at Little Mountain. Comments from three separate families exemplify how hard it has been for the tenants to make new friends:

Tenant: “People are not talking…The neighbours don’t laugh. I don’t know why. Just everybody’s not the same.”

Tenant: “If you’re not from North Van, they’re rude. I have two years living there; I make friends wherever I go. I can’t even call two people friends there, I have no friends over there. I went to every drop-in program to make friends and still I don’t have one.”

Tenant: “Everybody keeps to themselves…Everybody lives in fear, scared to do things. I’m so used to where everybody would do a barbeque outside, have a fair for the kids, get together once in a while. Over here, nobody do things like that, nothing like that…Everybody sticks to themselves. And I’m coming from a totally different mentality stage where I’m like, “Woo, hi everybody!””

Hot debate. What do you think? 11  1

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:17 am 7

You are correct to point out that the Little Mountain redevelopment is similar to the Olympic Village in that they are both massive boondoggles. But the key difference between these two redevelopments is that no one was displaced from the Olympic Village because it was a former industrial site. Little Mountain involved the displacement of 194 families. Many families were quite close with one another, even related to one another. They relied on each other for babysitting and rides to doctors appointments. But they have been sent all over the Lower Mainland.

Hot debate. What do you think? 13  2

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:22 am 8

Michael Gellar is saying that the delays at Little Mountain are due to the inexperience of the developer, Holborn Properties owned by Joo Kim Tiah and his family.

This is what Thomson had to say about the developer of Little Mountain in his Master’s thesis. Note the trouble Joo Kim Tiah’s father found himself in with the Kuala Lumpur stock exchange in 2002:

“First, let us consider the soon-to-be new owners of Little Mountain. Holborn Properties is the family business of the Malaysian-based Tiah family. A great deal of information about the Tiah family is available publicly in on-line journalistic sources. The Tiahs are a family of tycoons headed by Datuk Tony Tiah and his wife Datin Alicia Tiah. Datuk Tony is the majority shareholder of TA Enterprise Berhad, which is a stock-broking company that is publicly traded on Bursa Malaysia, which is the name of the Kuala Lumpur stock exchange. TA Enterprise Berhad is the majority shareholder of TA Global Berhad, which is a property company that owns hotels and other developments in Malaysia, Australia, and Canada. In 2008, Forbes ranked Tiah Thee Kian, which is another name that Datuk Tony Tiah goes by, as Malaysia’s 32nd richest person with a net worth of $160 million. But by 2010 Forbes reported that Tiah had dropped off the list, which only includes the 40 richest people in Malaysia. In 2002 Datuk Tony Tiah was convicted in Malaysia for filing false reports with the stock exchange. He was forced to resign from TA Enterprise, barred from holding any directorship for five years and fined RM 3 million. With these troubles now behind them, Datuk Tony and his wife Datin Alicia are getting older and are planning on handing over the reigns of their business empire to the next generation, which includes three daughters and two sons. Datuk Tony Tiah said, “I am not the end. I am the beginning of bigger things to come. If I don’t have good succession, this would be the beginning of the end.” The eldest of the two sons is Joo Kim Tiah, who holds a Master’s Degree in International Business from Australia’s Macquarie University. In January 2009 Joo Kim Tiah became the President of Holborn Properties and moved to Vancouver. Not too long before that, the Malaysia Tatler ran an article that profiled the young entrepreneur. Joo Kim Tiah described himself in the article: “I’m a very intense person. I strive for excellence in everything that I do.” The Malaysia Tatler is an off-shoot of the 300-year-old British Tatler, described as a “glossy magazine diary of London’s upper class at play.” To be profiled in the Malaysian version of this magazine is an indication that in Malaysia Joo Kim Tiah has a high profile as a young, trend-setting member of the country’s elite.” (Thomson, 2010, pp. 233-4)

Like or Dislike: 4  2

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:29 am 9

Another interesting tidbit from Thomson’s thesis on Little Mountain is that a BC Housing staff member was caught running a marijuana grow operation in one of the suites in 2008 after most of the tenants had already been displaced. BC Housing did say that redevelopment/displacement would raise money, but who would have thought they were raising money THIS way!!! This should have been a major scandal but the media never reported it:

“The lack of professionalism among BC Housing staff was made especially clear when one staff member was busted for setting up a marijuana grow-operation at Little Mountain. Several tenants have told me about the day in 2008 when they saw police bust a marijuana grow-operation in the caretaker’s suite. The caretaker was a BC Housing employee who lived in one of the Little Mountain units. Some tenants say the caretaker was not only growing marijuana in their own suite but also in the empty suites after tenants were relocated. But other tenants say that it was only in the caretaker’s suite. The eyewitness I spoke with says they saw police removing plant trays with seedlings from the caretaker’s suite. The eyewitness also saw the police checking the empty units, but the eyewitness did not see the police remove anything from the empty units. Thus, I have to assume that the grow-operation was confined to the caretaker’s suite. Because the marijuana plants were only seedlings, the impression of the eyewitness is that the grow-operation was very recent and that the caretaker was planning on transferring the plants to the empty units once the plants grew larger. This explanation does make sense but it is only speculation. I do not really know when the grow-operation was set up and what the caretaker’s plans were. But with the community virtually deserted, the conditions were certainly ideal for a grow-operation. It is possible that, with the housing project mostly empty, the caretaker felt emboldened to set up the grow-operation…Because the incident was “hushed up [and] never made the papers”, rumours and speculation are running wild among many Little Mountain tenants.” (Thomson, 2010, p. 258)

Hot debate. What do you think? 9  1

patriotz Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:33 am 10

August Teranet for Vancouver: % change y/y -0.27%, % change m/m -1.24%

That’s the first year over year decline for Vancouver since 2009, folks. The bust is on.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 75  1

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:47 am 11

The relocation of the Little Mountain tenants is one of the most disturbing similarities between this redevelopment and the old urban urban renewal programs of the 1950s, 60s. Urban renewal is a highly discredited approach to redevelopment and it is absolutely shocking that Vancouver, a city that brands itself as being at the leading edge of progressive urbanism, would be resurrecting urban renewal. Note the Africville residents in Halifax who were displaced from urban renewal in the 60s recently received an apology from the government. How long will the Little Mountain tenants have to wait for their apology?

From Thomson’s thesis, p. 262:

“The tenants who were closest with their neighbours at Little Mountain have experienced the greatest losses. One tenant was relocated to North Vancouver while the godmother of her children was relocated to Surrey. This tenant remarked, “Most of my friends, my network, my family were moved to Surrey.” Because there were multiple generations of the same family living at Little Mountain, relocation has literally broken apart families. Due to relocation, Brenda has been removed from her mother who lives in the seniors’ housing across the street and her daughter and grand-daughter who lived in another suite in the housing project. Brenda was relocated deep into the east side of Vancouver, while her daughter and granddaughter moved to the west side. Thus, four generations have been broken apart:

Tenant: “Before I was visiting my mum once, two, three times a day…In the project I would go, I am going to light a cigarette. Oh, I’ll throw on my shoes and go have one with my mum. Go up there and then in the summer when it was nice, go up there later. Now I’m lucky if I make it to pub day on Saturdays…If I’m not there she asks everybody where I am…When my daughter was living here, it was okay…I could go to her place…I’d say my relationship with my granddaughter has gone down 50% because I never get to see her.”

Brenda’s case demonstrates that the social impacts of relocation are not limited to the relocated Little Mountain tenants only—it is also those who were left behind in the surrounding neighbourhood. Brenda’s mother in the seniors’ housing across the street has lost her daughter, granddaughter, and great granddaughter, who were all relocated out of Little Mountain.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:51 am 12

The relocation of the Little Mountain tenants all across the Lower Mainland is one of the most disturbing similarities between this redevelopment and the old urban renewal programs from the 1950s, 60s. Urban renewal is a highly discredited approach to urban development. The whole scale demolition of neighbourhoods and mass displacements of residential communities is something we learned not to do after the lessons from the 1960s.

From Thomson’s thesis, p. 14: “By the early 1970s,” urban historian Jon C. Teaford writes, “urban renewal had become synonymous in the popular mind with bulldozers and heartless displacement of the poor and powerless. Consequently, its enduring lessons were primarily negative. It taught America what not to do in the future”

Vancouver has branded itself as the greenest city in the world and an example of leading edge progressive urbanism. That is why it is absolutely shocking and embarrassing that Vancouver would be resurrecting the discredited urban renewal approach to redevelopment.

Like or Dislike: 7  1

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:54 am 13

Social impacts of relocation of Little Mountain tenants, documented in Thomson’s thesis, p. 262:

“The tenants who were closest with their neighbours at Little Mountain have experienced the greatest losses. One tenant was relocated to North Vancouver while the godmother of her children was relocated to Surrey. This tenant remarked, “Most of my friends, my network, my family were moved to Surrey.” Because there were multiple generations of the same family living at Little Mountain, relocation has literally broken apart families. Due to relocation, Brenda has been removed from her mother who lives in the seniors’ housing across the street and her daughter and grand-daughter who lived in another suite in the housing project. Brenda was relocated deep into the east side of Vancouver, while her daughter and granddaughter moved to the west side. Thus, four generations have been broken apart:

Brenda: “Before I was visiting my mum once, two, three times a day…In the project I would go, I am going to light a cigarette. Oh, I’ll throw on my shoes and go have one with my mum. Go up there and then in the summer when it was nice, go up there later. Now I’m lucky if I make it to pub day on Saturdays…If I’m not there she asks everybody where I am…When my daughter was living here, it was okay…I could go to her place…I’d say my relationship with my granddaughter has gone down 50% because I never get to see her.”

Brenda’s case demonstrates that the social impacts of relocation are not limited to the relocated Little Mountain tenants only—it is also those who were left behind in the surrounding neighbourhood. Brenda’s mother in the seniors’ housing across the street has lost her daughter, granddaughter, and great granddaughter, who were all relocated out of Little Mountain.”
Thomson, 2010, p. 262

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:55 am 14

Social impacts of relocation of Little Mountain tenants, documented in Thomson’s thesis, p. 262:

“The tenants who were closest with their neighbours at Little Mountain have experienced the greatest losses. One tenant was relocated to North Vancouver while the godmother of her children was relocated to Surrey. This tenant remarked, “Most of my friends, my network, my family were moved to Surrey.” Because there were multiple generations of the same family living at Little Mountain, relocation has literally broken apart families. Due to relocation, Brenda has been removed from her mother who lives in the seniors’ housing across the street and her daughter and grand-daughter who lived in another suite in the housing project. Brenda was relocated deep into the east side of Vancouver, while her daughter and granddaughter moved to the west side. Thus, four generations have been broken apart:

Brenda: “Before I was visiting my mum once, two, three times a day…In the project I would go, I am going to light a cigarette. Oh, I’ll throw on my shoes and go have one with my mum. Go up there and then in the summer when it was nice, go up there later. Now I’m lucky if I make it to pub day on Saturdays…If I’m not there she asks everybody where I am…When my daughter was living here, it was okay…I could go to her place…I’d say my relationship with my granddaughter has gone down 50% because I never get to see her.”

Brenda’s case demonstrates that the social impacts of relocation are not limited to the relocated Little Mountain tenants only—it is also those who were left behind in the surrounding neighbourhood. Brenda’s mother in the seniors’ housing across the street has lost her daughter, granddaughter, and great granddaughter, who were all relocated out of Little Mountain.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:57 am 15

Social impacts of relocation of Little Mountain tenants, documented in Thomson’s thesis, p. 262:

“Because there were multiple generations of the same family living at Little Mountain, relocation has literally broken apart families. Due to relocation, Brenda has been removed from her mother who lives in the seniors’ housing across the street and her daughter and grand-daughter who lived in another suite in the housing project. Brenda was relocated deep into the east side of Vancouver, while her daughter and granddaughter moved to the west side. Thus, four generations have been broken apart:

Brenda: “Before I was visiting my mum once, two, three times a day…In the project I would go, I am going to light a cigarette. Oh, I’ll throw on my shoes and go have one with my mum. Go up there and then in the summer when it was nice, go up there later. Now I’m lucky if I make it to pub day on Saturdays…If I’m not there she asks everybody where I am…When my daughter was living here, it was okay…I could go to her place…I’d say my relationship with my granddaughter has gone down 50% because I never get to see her.”

Brenda’s case demonstrates that the social impacts of relocation are not limited to the relocated Little Mountain tenants only—it is also those who were left behind in the surrounding neighbourhood. Brenda’s mother in the seniors’ housing across the street has lost her daughter, granddaughter, and great granddaughter, who were all relocated out of Little Mountain.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

RFM Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:11 am 16

One has to wonder about the competence of a company that, on its website, promotes a huge project with this:

“1151 WEST GEORGIA ST, VANCOUVER

The West Georgia tower was designed by the world renowned architect Arthur Erickson as an iconic, twisting structure that at 63 stories above the city would be Vancouver’s second tallest tower.

The overall design will incorporate a prominent hotel and destination restaurant, directly off of Georgia Street. The Residences will be located above the hotel, capturing some of the most inspiring views the city has to offer and providing a dramatic edition to Vancouver’s unique downtown skyline.”

Source: Holborn website at: http://www.holborn.ca/developments/upcoming-projects/1151-west-georgia

Riddled with grammatical mistakes, do they not care, or do they lack the interest and/or competence to get it right?

Hot debate. What do you think? 10  5

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:11 am 17

Social impacts of relocation of Little Mountain tenants, documented in Thomson’s thesis:

“Because there were multiple generations of the same family living at Little Mountain, relocation has literally broken apart families. Due to relocation, Brenda has been removed from her mother who lives in the seniors’ housing across the street and her daughter and grand-daughter who lived in another suite in the housing project. Brenda was relocated deep into the east side of Vancouver, while her daughter and granddaughter moved to the west side. Thus, four generations have been broken apart:

Brenda: “Before I was visiting my mum once, two, three times a day…In the project I would go, I am going to light a cigarette. Oh, I’ll throw on my shoes and go have one with my mum. Go up there and then in the summer when it was nice, go up there later. Now I’m lucky if I make it to pub day on Saturdays…If I’m not there she asks everybody where I am…When my daughter was living here, it was okay…I could go to her place…I’d say my relationship with my granddaughter has gone down 50% because I never get to see her.” (p. 262)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:12 am 18

Holborn is run by a bunch of amateurs.

Like or Dislike: 1  2

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:31 am 19

People tend to think that public housing projects like Little Mountain require massive government subsidies. In fact, many tenants had high enough incomes that they were paying market rents (rents that BC Housing considers reflect the market value of comparable private sector rentals). Also, the tenants’ rents covered the mortgage costs of Little Mountain. Little Mountain cost about $2 million to build in the early 1950s, amortized over 50 years, the monthly mortgage payment for each unit worked out to $35.48 per month. Average rent paid by tenants in 1954 when Little Mountain was first opened was $45. So the rents more than covered the mortgage. Public housing rents are based on incomes. Tenants incomes increased with inflation over the 50 year lifetime of Little Mountain. But the mortgage did not increase, it was locked in at 4% rate for the entire 50 year amortization. That means the tenants rents always were more than enough to cover the mortgage. Of course, there are other costs with running a public housing project: maintenance, administration, etc. Yes, subsidies from the government were required when you consider those additional costs. But the subsidies are nowhere near what most people think they are, especially when you consider the public subsidies homeowners get through CMHC mortgage insurance. Thomson wrote in his thesis: “when Little Mountain was first created in 1954, the economic rent averaged $69.40 per month per unit. Economic rent refers to the true cost of housing, including the mortgage and the operating costs. The rents the first tenants paid averaged $45 per month per unit. Thus, at least in the early years, the tenants’ rents accounted for almost two-thirds of the total cost of Little Mountain, with government subsidies only accounting for about one-third.” (p. 217)

Hot debate. What do you think? 14  1

X Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:36 am 20

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

@Anonymous: 33% off rent. sounds like a sweet deal. How do I get in on this racket?

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 5  13

Keeping An Eye On The Pimps Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:45 am 21

Mr. Muir said, “To see a substantial price decline, you need….Pimp bs etc etc blah blah.” But there’s no evidence of that here.”

Cam I’m quite sure you log on to this site…. So questions for you?

Are you that stupid, or just condescending?

I say, this is a bubble and like all others it will burst; for it not to burst, human nature and economics would have to be re- engineered, and I don’s see any evidence of that, do you?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 27  2

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:52 am 22

@X:

“33% off rent. sounds like a sweet deal. How do I get in on this racket?”

If you have children and a low enough income you can go on the waiting list for BC Housing. Also, if you are over 55 with low income you can go on the waiting list for seniors housing with BC Housing.

But unless you have a drug addiction or mental illness you will be waiting a LONG time! Under the BC Liberal housing policy (Housing Matters, 2007), people with drug addictions/mental illness are bumped to the top of the waiting list for BC Housing. Our public housing system for families/seniors is being reconfigured into a supportive housing system for people with addictions/mental illness. This Little Mountain redevelopment is all part of that.

It used to be back in the 50s and 60s, that public housing was geared for the “deserving poor”, people who fit the mold of nuclear family, one mum, one dad, kids. They were very picky about who they let into public housing projects like Little Mountain. Government officials would actually come to an applicants house and inspect it, people were frequently denied entry into Little Mountain if it was found they were poor housekeepers.

Also, it was crucial to the local economy to provide rental housing that working class people could afford. A great deal of the impetus behind the initial public housing programs (Wartime Housing Ltd in the 40s) was to provide housing to people working in the factories that supplied the war effort. When we used to have an economy that produced things, it used to be crucial to capitalism that people could afford to live near the factories. Now we have an economy based on credit, real estate, and consumption so it doesn’t matter anymore if people can afford housing. We get all our stuff from China.

Hot debate. What do you think? 12  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:01 am 23

Some history on Little Mountain architecture traced back to British Garden City movement, from Thomson, 2010, p. 86:

“The design of the [Little Mountain] buildings was to “follow a pattern similar to that of the units constructed on West Broadway and West 4th Avenue under the Housing Enterprise Scheme.” This is a reference to veterans’ housing built in 1946—Vancouver’s first effort at government-supplied rental apartments, although technically not public housing because the rents were not subsidized. The design used at both the veterans’ housing and Little Mountain was the creation of architectural firm Sharp and Thompson, Berwick, Pratt. According to Wade (1994), the design was a “simplified and modernized” version of designs used by the British “Garden City, London County Council, and ‘homes for heroes’ designers between 1900 and 1930.” The design was also used at a housing project in New Westminster that stood at the corner of Eighth Avenue and McBride. The New Westminster housing project and the veterans’ housing on Broadway and Fourth Avenue were demolished and redeveloped several years ago. Thus, up until the Little Mountain Housing Project was demolished earlier this year, Little Mountain was the last local example of this design import from Britain whose lineage can be traced back to the British Garden City movement.”

British public housing was called ‘Homes for Heroes’ because it was meant as a reward to veterans for their service to the country.

Like or Dislike: 4  1

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:05 am 24

On the selection of the first Little Mountain families back in 1954, from Thomson, 2010, pp. 93-4

“The initial Little Mountain families were selected based on an “elaborate points system” that, in addition to income, considered such factors as the quality of their present living conditions, present security of tenure, crowding, present rents, credit worthiness, housekeeping and other factors. Depending on family size, minimum family monthly incomes were set at between $115 and $155. Maximum income was between $290 and $325 per month, depending on family size. Based on figures offered by Michael Wheeler in his analysis of the over 1700 applications for Little Mountain completed in 1954, the largest categories of rejection were high income (42%), lack of residence (21%) (apparently, homeless families
were not accepted) and poor housekeeping (20%). Low-income senior citizens on pensions were allowed to live in the Little Mountain Housing Project from the beginning as an entire block of apartment buildings (110, 120, 140, 150, 160 Grouse Walk, commonly referred to as ‘Pensioners’ Row’) was dedicated to them. Although Little Mountain was noted for being primarily a family project with a large number of children, from the beginning it was meant to integrate a variety of households including families and seniors. This was considered to be a somewhat innovative approach to public housing in North America at the time. In the first few years welfare recipients were barred from living there until later in the 1950s after the City agreed to increase its social allowance for rentals.”

Like or Dislike: 1  2

X Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:06 am 25

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

@Anonymous: Was it all white people?

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 2  13

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:09 am 26

On how the initial development of public housing and the current destruction of public housing are connected to broader changes in the economy, from Thomson, 2010, pp. 24-5:

“When public housing was first built during the middle decades of the twentieth-century, it served an important purpose in the capitalist quest to accumulate profit. The initial construction of public housing in the 1930s in the US was part of an effort to stimulate the economy during the Great Depression and create jobs for the growing numbers of unemployed. And after it was constructed, public housing served an important role in providing housing for workers who were employed in the war and shipbuilding industries that were so crucial to the economies of many North American cities at the time. Scholars have shown how the Canadian government in the early 1940s set aside its ideological aversion to public housing and created Wartime Housing Limited, essentially a precursor to Canada’s later public housing programs, due to the fact that the shortage of working class housing in many Canadian cities was hampering the war effort and undermining the local economies of cities. But today public housing no longer serves an important function for capital accumulation. Central cities have experienced deindustrialization as working class jobs have moved offshore or to suburban business parks, far from where most public housing is located. Rather than being populated by the working class who fuel the local economy, for some time now public housing has been inhabited largely by the permanently unemployed. In the current context, public housing has become ‘obsolete’, to use the word of so many proponents of redevelopment. By occupying large tracts of valuable land in the central city, public housing acts as a barrier to profitable real estate development in rapidly gentrifying inner-city neighbourhoods. In the post-industrial neoliberal city, “real-estate development [has become] a centerpiece of the city’s productive economy, an end in itself” (emphasis in the original). Public housing redevelopment removes physical infrastructure that no longer serves any purpose for capital accumulation while creating new opportunities for investment and profit-making in the real estate sector, which is now of central importance to the economies of cities.”

Like or Dislike: 4  3

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:14 am 27

@X:

“Was it all white people?”

From Thomson’s thesis, p. 95:

“In terms of its racial mix, Little Mountain started off almost entirely populated by white people, although there was a presence of Chinese residents since the housing project’s earliest days.”

BC Housing does not keep statistics on the racial identities of its tenants (unlike the US public housing authorities, which do keep these stats). But I can say that over time, Little Mountain featured more racial minorities. Thomson interviewed Chinese residents, First Nations residents, South Asian residents, etc. But right up until the very end there was a significant presence of white people at Little Mountain. Ingrid Steenhuisen is a prominent Little Mountain tenant who has led the fight against redevelopment. She is white. This is unlike the dominant pattern in public housing in the US and Toronto, which have very few white residents. Some public housing projects in the USA are almost entirely populated by black people. Little Mountain was not like that. Little Mountain definitely had racial diversity and people of all racial backgrounds but it definitely also had a great deal of white people right up to the very end.

Like or Dislike: 7  1

real_professional Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:44 am 28

Teranet Data out today:

The following table contains the Price Index change from all-time highs and the Volume change from the previous highest August (Sales Pairs going back to August 1999)

I am amazed at how badly the volume had dried up Vancouver is at 1/2 the volume of its glory days. Prices are coming down slowly – at least this is following the averages.

Region Price Volume
Ottawa_Gatineau 0.0% 0.0%
AB_Calgary -7.2% -28.8%
AB_EDMONTON -10.3% -20.0%
BC_Vancouver -1.7% -52.2%
BC_Victoria -3.3% -45.0%
NS_Halifax 0.0% -61.9%
ON_Hamilton 0.0% 0.0%
ON_Toronto 0.0% 0.0%
QC_Montreal 0.0% -10.0%
QC_Québec -0.6% -3.1%
SK_Winnipeg 0.0% -22.2%

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 36  0

Bag it and tag it Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:48 am 29

REIT’s came up a couple days ago. I was considering buying a US ETF REIT. Anyone have any recommendations or advice?

Like or Dislike: 5  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:50 am 30

Back to the issue of government subsidies, I think it is important to point out that part of the reason why we are in a real estate bubble right now is a right wing aversion to rental housing, especially public rental housing.

There is a vast academic literature funded by right wing think tanks in the US that argues that homeownership is the ideal. Homeowners are believed to be better citizens because they are invested in the communities. Renters are portrayed as transients (nevermind that many Little Mountain residents lived there for decades, hardly transients compared to the offshore owners who buy real estate in Vancouver just as a container of wealth) who do not contribute much to the community.

The belief that became dominant in the US in the 1990s was that every American should be able to own a home, even if this meant massive public subsidies. This was behind the Fanny Mae debacle, low income people were given mortgages that were backed by government funds. This was believed to be preferable to housing low income people in public housing projects. But look at the results of this policy. It inflated real estate prices beyond anything justified by the economic fundamentals and led to a great deal of misallocation of capital. All Americans are now paying those costs as their economy is now in the shitter as a result. It would be far cheaper to the American economy to house the poor in public housing projects. Yes, public housing requires government subsidies. But it doesn’t fuck up the entire economy to the extent that a real estate bubble does based on the ideological belief that homeowners make better citizens than renters, esp. public housing renters. The subsidies involved with public housing are far less costly than the subsidies and other ill negative economic effects of a real estate bubble.

Hot debate. What do you think? 7  6

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:53 am 31

It seems to me there are two issues here:

1. Was it right to take Little Mountain out of the social housing pool?

2. Was the deal with the developer a good one?

While I think you can make a strong argument for “No” in response to the second question insofar as nothing has been built so far, I think the answer to the first question is yes. I’m not without sympathy for the former residents but dedicating 6.2 continious hectacres of grade A prime Vancouver real estate to social housing doesn’t make sense to me.

Hot debate. What do you think? 13  11

X Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:06 am 32

@Anonymous:

“I think it is important to point out that part of the reason why we are in a real estate bubble right now is a right wing aversion to rental housing”

i’m not sure how you can say that it’s a right wing thing. seems like every party was throwing money at people to buy homes, regardless of their politics.

Hot debate. What do you think? 7  3

condo paradise Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:09 am 33

@real_professional:

I didn’t realize that Winnipeg moved to SK

Like or Dislike: 5  1

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:10 am 34

@Anonymous:

“but dedicating 6.2 continious hectacres of grade A prime Vancouver real estate to social housing doesn’t make sense to me.”

It’s only grade A prime Vancouver real estate BECAUSE of the real estate bubble that has distorted values. In fact, part of the reason the site was initially chosen for public housing back in the 50s was because it was considered marginal land, away from the downtown core, on a site with significant drainage problems as it used to be a swamp.

You seem to be saying that economic exchange value should trump use values. There is an incredible use value to have Little Mountain as a social housing site. It is important for a healthy society that a mix of income levels can afford to live in the city. The residents of Little Mountain did contribute to the city in myriad ways. Many of them did work in the local economy. Many of them did work at Oakridge Mall. I keep hearing about how retailers at Oakridge can’t get staff because the people who make min. wage can’t afford Vancouver rents. I mean, where are the service workers who make minimum wage supposed to live? Living in Surrey is not the answer because then they will work in Surrey. Minimum wage workers cannot afford 3 zone bus fares to go to jobs in Vancouver. It is not healthy to society or to the economy to have a city that working class people cannot afford to live in. Also, many of the tenants volunteered in local organizations. These people contributed to society, unlike the real estate speculators from Asia who just buy up land as a financial investment. The forcible displacement of residents creates great animosity and does not facilitate harmonious social relations.

Also, the fact is the land at Little Mountain was already paid for. The mortgage was amortized over 50 years starting in 1956 and it was all paid off by 2006. As I have already said, the tenants rents more than covered the mortgage costs. The tenants rents for 50 years paid for the land at Little Mountain. To me, it makes more sense from a taxpayers perspective to use land that has already been paid for for social housing as opposed to buying up new real estate for social housing. We are using prime land at the Olympic Village for social housing. It would be cheaper for the taxpayers for the government to sell off the social housing units at the Olympic Village and focus its social housing on land that was already paid for decades ago before we had a real estate bubble that drove up prices. Plus, you have to think about the 14 sites that the City of Vancouver has bought in recent years for supportive housing development (the development of these new supportive housing facilities is being paid for from the proceeds of Little Mountain privatization). So the City of Vancouver has been buying up “prime land” (what isn’t “prime land” these days in Vancouver???) right during the middle of a real estate bubble in order to house drug addicts in supportive housing. It makes far more sense to not buy this land during a real estate bubble, and focus our social housing efforts on land that is already publicly owned bought decades ago.

Hot debate. What do you think? 16  4

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:13 am 35

@X:

“i’m not sure how you can say that it’s a right wing thing. seems like every party was throwing money at people to buy homes, regardless of their politics.”

Sure, the NDP and the left wing are guilty of cheering on the real estate bubble. Most NDPers are homeowners themselves. Thomas Mulcair has remortgages his home 11 times and used it as an ATM. Point taken.

But I haven’t heard too many right wingers calling for the development of more public rental housing. Also, I was talking more about the academic literature out of the USA that argues that homeowners make better citizens than renters and so we should not do public housing anymore, instead we should subsidize mortgages. THAT policy discourse came from the right wing. That research was funded by right wing think tanks in the US.

Hot debate. What do you think? 8  3

b5baxter Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:13 am 36

@Bag it and tag it:
I own VNQ. An important part of my strategy is diversification and this ETF tracks an index so it owns many individual REITs which creates strong diversification.

Like or Dislike: 5  1

patriotz Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:18 am 37

@Bag it and tag it:
“I was considering buying a US ETF REIT. Anyone have any recommendations or advice?”

All distributions from US securities are treated as fully taxable income for Canadians regardless of how the IRS classifies it. So US REIT’s are a bad idea for Canadians except in an RRSP.

Hot debate. What do you think? 10  0

Makaya Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:27 am 38

@condo paradise: lol, I didn’t realize that I moved to SK as well!

Like or Dislike: 2  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:29 am 39

@Anonymous:
“It’s only grade A prime Vancouver real estate BECAUSE of the real estate bubble that has distorted values”

No, it became prime real estate because the city’s population has basically doubled since LM was built. As the population increased the land went from being of marignal value to being very valuable.

As for “use values” with 224 people on 6.4 hectacres of land, LM basically housed one person per 3,000 square feet. I don’t think that’s a very efficent use of land for public housing.

Hot debate. What do you think? 21  7

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:38 am 40

@Anonymous:

“As for “use values” with 224 people on 6.4 hectacres of land, LM basically housed one person per 3,000 square feet. I don’t think that’s a very efficent use of land for public housing.”

I am not saying that Little Mountain should not be redeveloped. I am not saying that it should not have had higher density.

In 1982 it was recommended that Little Mountain be redeveloped into a higher density public housing project consisting of 400 units. That would have kept the entire site as public housing. I would have supported that.

I am just responding to your statement that prime land in Vancouver should not be used for social housing. Because of the population growth you point out, all land in the City of Vancouver could be considered “prime” land. Following your logic, there should be no social housing at all in the City of Vancouver. So should there be any social housing anywhere in Metro Vancouver? What land is considered not so prime that it should be used for social housing? Should all the social housing be developed out in Surrey. Can you imagine what kind of metro region that would create–a highly segregated society in which the rich live in Vancouver (“live” is generous, many of these expensive homes are actually not lived in, they are investment vehicles for people who live offshore) and the working class live out in distant suburbs. That is not healthy for society. You need to have some working class people and poor people who can live within the City itself. Working class people are the ones who built Vancouver, their ancestors built up the city, the tenants of Little Mountain paid for the land at Little Mountain–these people have a right to remain in the City, somewhere in the City.

The irony with this discussion is that the Little Mountain redevelopment was justified on the basis that it would create a mixed income community, as opposed to Little Mountain, which represents a form of segregation as it is only lower income people who live there. But then supporters of redevelopment end up arguing AGAINST the concept of mixed income and arguing in favour of segregation, saying poor people shouldn’t be allowed to live in the City of Vancouver, which is all now considered prime land.

Hot debate. What do you think? 10  3

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:44 am 41

Anonymous seems to be saying that the Little Mountain residents should not be allowed to live on the “prime” land that Little Mountain has become. I disagree because the Little Mountain residents are the ones who were there first and they helped to shape the development of the Main Street neighbourhood into the desirable neighbourhood it has become.

From Thomson’s thesis, p. 144:

“Thus, in many ways the Little Mountain Housing Project was the seeding ground for the other institutions that followed in the surrounding neighbourhood. Through their involvement in the LMTA and their disproportionate membership on key committees such as the Little Mountain Community Resources Board and the Riley Park Citizens’ NIP Planning Committee, Little Mountain tenants helped give the surrounding neighbourhood many of the institutions that continue to be well used by the larger community to the present day, even after the Little Mountain tenants themselves have been displaced: the Riley Park Community Centre, the Leisure Access Program (which has its roots in the ‘free skate’ program put on by Little Mountain tenants), the Little Mountain Youth Project (versions of which still exist), the Little Mountain Neighbourhood House, and the seniors’ non-profit housing at Little Mountain Court and Little Mountain Place. Even the nearby General Brock Elementary School was expanded in 1956 in order to accommodate the influx of students following the opening of the housing project. Thus, as Ingrid Steenhuisen has remarked, “Out of all these organizations, the one that was here the longest and first was the complex itself.” Even if some of the individuals have moved on or passed away, the family public housing tenant constituency at Little Mountain has invested time and effort into the surrounding community and helped to make it what it is today and as such absolutely has a stake in the future direction of both the housing project and the surrounding neighbourhood that deserves to be respected.”

Oh, but they don’t deserve to live there anymore because it is prime land. Give me a break!

Like or Dislike: 5  1

X Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:57 am 42

@Anonymous: “I disagree because the Little Mountain residents are the ones who were there first and they helped to shape the development of the Main Street neighbourhood into the desirable neighbourhood it has become.”

Instead of being thankful for decades of subsidized rent they want us to reward them? Wow…

Hot debate. What do you think? 11  15

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:57 am 43

Regarding the argument that social housing doesn’t belong in Vancouver because it is all prime land due to population growth:

Cities around the world, with far higher populations and real estate values than Vancouver, such as New York, London, Hong Kong, all have public housing within the city. And these cities continue to build new public housing for families, unlike Vancouver which only builds supportive housing for drug addicts. If these cities can manage it, why can’t Vancouver. Vancouver real estate isn’t nearly as prime as New York real estate yet New York still has room for public housing.

Most people don’t realize that 50% of the housing stock in Hong Kong is public housing. This is in city with far greater land constraints than Vancouver. Land is at such a premium in Hong Kong that they have been forced to reclaim land from the ocean!!! Yet they still manage to have 50% of housing stock as public housing!!! And it is public housing for low income people generally, with priority given to housing those who have been displaced by speculative housing development in the private sector. The Hong Kong example proves right there that you can have a large public housing sector alongside a speculative-driven private real estate market.

Hot debate. What do you think? 16  0

jesse Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:00 am 44

A bit of analysis on the Teranet HPI. Regular readers of the comments will know that the Teranet HPI is a lagging indicator of market health for a few reasons. First it averages over a couple of months, second it reports on closed sales, and third it is released a month after the data are accumulated. That means the August index uses data from MLS-booked sales stretching from late June through early August. We are now near the end of September and things haven’t been getting any better.

As commenter VHB has mentioned a few times, sales, listings, and inventory levels are leading indicators of the eventual releases of the Teranet and MLS HPIs. In other words we know that the Teranet HPI is likely going to continue to drop for the rest of the year unless there is a marked rebound in sales. This is not a hopeful guess, it is based on looking at the amount of competition hopeful sellers are likely to be facing for the remainder of 2012. That will mean that both price indexes are going to be markedly YOY negative by the end of the year.

This is the time of the year when the “heavy lifting” of price drops occurs. October is typically the “last best hope” for any sort of salvation for sales in 2012.

Commenter ZRH2YVR YVR2ZRH has stated that inventory has likely peaked and will not hit 20K, and will be hard-pressed to hit 19K as reported by REBGV. I think that is a reasonable assessment. In addition it was stated that October sales will come in better than in 2008. I think that will be correct as well but we should not lose track of the big picture, that MOI, even if October sales meet or beat those in September will be high and that almost assuredly means price drops but not as significant as was the case in 2008. Remember, 2008 price changes in Vancouver were worse than any of the US “bubble” cities. If we don’t hit that level we will still be dropping at levels comparable to cities like Phoenix, Miami and San Diego, which isn’t exactly disappointing for “bears”.

The real debate around here should be what’s going to happen in 2013. The rest of 2012 is baked in. It will be fun to watch, but at this point it will not be surprising.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 46  1

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:03 am 45

@X

“Instead of being thankful for decades of subsidized rent they want us to reward them? ”

Nobody is asking for a reward. They are just asking to be allowed to remain in Vancouver, in their neighbourhood, where they have always been, and where they have contributed to the economy and society.

Subsidized rent, yes. But the rents covered the entire mortgage costs. The tenants paid for that land!!! Yet when it is privatized, the economic benefits of privatization go to everyone BUT the Little Mountain tenants: the developer, the homeless and addicted who get to move into supportive housing paid for by the proceeds. Welfare economics looks at the distribution of costs and benefits to various groups. This distribution is lopsided. The benefactors are the developers and the drug addicts. The tenants who were displaced and had their lives turned upside down are only on the losing end. Yet their rents paid for this valuable asset that is Little Mountain!!!

Hot debate. What do you think? 10  2

jesse Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:04 am 46

@Anonymous: “The Hong Kong example proves right there that you can have a large public housing sector alongside a speculative-driven private real estate market.”

They can co-exist but the tensions are as strong in Hong Kong as they are here when it comes to inequality and speculative excesses, from what my friends living there have told me. A good debate topic nonetheless. I’ve heard the calls for a marked increase in “public housing” in Vancouver; I think it misses the bigger picture but that doesn’t mean I’m right.

Like or Dislike: 7  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:13 am 47

The fact that real estate bears think that land is at such a premium in Vancouver that there is zero room for public housing in Vancouver just demonstrates that the bubble psychology has even infected the bears.

Land is not that precious in Vancouver. If New York, Hong Kong, Toronto, Paris, virtually every major city in the world, has room for public housing within city limits then so does Vancouver.

Maybe 50% of housing stock in Hong Kong as public housing is too much public housing. Maybe. But I think definitely the less than 1% of housing stock as public housing in Vancouver is too low. Once again, there has to be some place for the working poor to live within the city in order to have a healthy city and a low wage work force to support the economy.

Hot debate. What do you think? 12  0

Makaya Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:17 am 48

From the Economist today:

“Our new debate on home-ownership is now open. Homes are undiversified investments and price crashes can wipe out household wealth. Owners are also less likely to move, which means that broad ownership may reduce labour market flexibility and raise structural unemployment. Should home-ownership be discouraged?”

Vote and comment via http://econ.st/PS0BA7

Hot debate. What do you think? 19  0

Bull! Bull! Bull! Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:36 am 49

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

@jesse:

That’s right bears. Yet again, no crash! Maybe next year! ( yeah, right )

Honestly, bears predicting no crash makes me a bit nervous. As we all know, their always wrong.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 2  19

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:55 am 50

@Anonymous: Anonymous seems to be saying that the Little Mountain residents should not be allowed to live on the “prime” land that Little Mountain has become

I didn’t say this at all. I said that LM was not an efficient means of delivering social housing.

Any reasonable person would acknowledge that is is prudent that government consider efficiency when delivering social goods. As an example I would imagine even the most die hard socialist would think a plan to create 200 social housing units by having the government purchase the Fairmont Pacific Rim would be a stupid use of resources.

Hot debate. What do you think? 5  6

Many Franks Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:01 am 51

@Anonymous: At least one of you guys should pick a name. This may well be a good discussion but I can’t help reading in the voice of the local beardo who argues with himself.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 26  0

Dog Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:01 am 52

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Central banks are pumping so much cash into the system that you have to own real assets like real estate.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 0  14

rp1 Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:06 am 53

#43 @Makaya: “Should home-ownership be discouraged?”

Absolutely not, but excessive debt should be discouraged. Real estate is normally a great investment for the middle class. If you move infrequently, as most families try to, modest returns accumulate over a very long period of time. But the price you pay determines those returns.

What really has to go is the “buy and hold” mentality. Half of investing is knowing when to buy. The other half is knowing when to sell. “Buy and hold” ignores both!

Like or Dislike: 9  0

Asun Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:08 am 54

More Craigslist fun. Check out these 2 postings, note the timestamp.
First one posted at 8:02 am.
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/reo/3282046900.html
Second one posted at 8:14 am.
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/reo/3282076199.html

There you have it, $4000 asking price drops in 12 mins.

Hot debate. What do you think? 18  0

patriotz Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:11 am 55

@Dog:
No you don’t have to. Nor did anyone in the US, Ireland, etc. Is that the best you pumpers can do?

As for government discouraging RE ownership, I’d be more than happy simply for it to take a neutral position – i.e. no CMHC, no homeowners grant, etc. I’d even be willing to live with the current capital gains/rental income exemption since I don’t think it’s going to be worth much going forward.

Hot debate. What do you think? 13  2

Many Franks Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:15 am 56

@Asun: Yes, but it also shrank by 50 ft2. At this rate it’ll be free in a couple of days, but it will also have ceased to exist.

Like or Dislike: 6  0

choose a name Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:21 am 57

@Anonymous:

I agree with the efficient use of land completely. However, having prime real estate sit empty for years isn’t efficient use either. You have to agree that the timing of this project is out of whack.

Like or Dislike: 9  0

Dog Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:24 am 58

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

US real estate has been on a tear higher since the banks started pumping money. What are you talking about Willis?

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 3  17

Ray Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 12:00 pm 59

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Did anyone else skip over all of joe_blow’s posts today? He must have jizzed himself when he saw today’s topic. Worst… topic… ever. It was so much easier to skip his posts when he named himself — so my apologies to all the Anonymouses for skipping them all today.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 1  13

ScubaSteve Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 12:24 pm 60

Does anyone know what the average prices are looking like right now for the REBGV? Last month we had numerous big sales ($10 million or more) reported. Any big sales this month? Any predictions on where the average price will be?

Like or Dislike: 4  1

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 12:34 pm 61

@Anonymous #45:

“I said that LM was not an efficient means of delivering social housing.

Any reasonable person would acknowledge that is is prudent that government consider efficiency when delivering social goods. As an example I would imagine even the most die hard socialist would think a plan to create 200 social housing units by having the government purchase the Fairmont Pacific Rim would be a stupid use of resources.”

I agree that it is prudent that government consider efficiency when delivering social goods. I pointed out the 1982 report (by Olson Architect) that recommends Little Mountain be redeveloped into a higher density 400 unit public housing project. I agree with that recommendation. I agree that it would be more efficient to increase density of public housing units at Little Mountain.

I also think that purchasing the Fairmont Pacific Rim hotel for social housing in a stupid use of resources. The Olympic Village social housing units are the real life equivalent to the Fairmont Pacific Rim as social housing!!! I am sasying it is stupid to have these expensive condos at the Olympic Village being used for social housing when we have Little Mountain that is already paid for! Newsflash–the government actually has been purchasing hotels to be used for social housing. IT may not be the Fairmont Pacific Rim, but the provincial government has purchased hotels in the DTES for social housing. These hotels were purchased during the BUBBLE years!!! This is inefficient use of taxpayers dollars for social housing! Also, the City of Vancouver has purchased 14 sites for supportive housing all around Vancouver, including one site at Arbutus and West 17th! All purchased during the real estate bubble! These were expensive properties to buy. That is my point exactly, thank you for making it for me. We already had Little Mountain, all 6.2 hectares of it, already purchased back in the 1950s for $2million amortized over 50 years, tenants paid off the mortgage. It was bought and paid for! We don’t need to be buying up hotels and expensive properties on the west for supportive housing for drug addicts when we already have these large public housing properties purchased decades before the bubble when real estate was cheap. So let’s use our public housing real estate holdings more efficiently and let’s redevelop them into higher density public housing projects so that we can help ease the rental crunch that working class people are facing in Vancouver. The low vacancy rate in Vancouver for rentals and the very poor quality they are in is what forces working class people to take on 40 year mortgages at low interest rates. This lack of rental housing is partly behind the real estate bubble. So let’s use CMHC for what it was used for back in the 1950s when Little Mountain was created by CMHC–let’s build new public housing on our large public properties like Little Mountain that were already paid for decades ago. This is a far better use of public resources than buying up hotels in the DTES during a real estate bubble!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 12:34 pm 62

@Anonymous #45:

“I said that LM was not an efficient means of delivering social housing.

Any reasonable person would acknowledge that is is prudent that government consider efficiency when delivering social goods. As an example I would imagine even the most die hard socialist would think a plan to create 200 social housing units by having the government purchase the Fairmont Pacific Rim would be a stupid use of resources.”

I agree that it is prudent that government consider efficiency when delivering social goods. I pointed out the 1982 report (by Olson Architect) that recommends Little Mountain be redeveloped into a higher density 400 unit public housing project. I agree with that recommendation. I agree that it would be more efficient to increase density of public housing units at Little Mountain.

I also think that purchasing the Fairmont Pacific Rim hotel for social housing in a stupid use of resources. The Olympic Village social housing units are the real life equivalent to the Fairmont Pacific Rim as social housing!!! I am sasying it is stupid to have these expensive condos at the Olympic Village being used for social housing when we have Little Mountain that is already paid for! Newsflash–the government actually has been purchasing hotels to be used for social housing. IT may not be the Fairmont Pacific Rim, but the provincial government has purchased hotels in the DTES for social housing. These hotels were purchased during the BUBBLE years!!! This is inefficient use of taxpayers dollars for social housing! Also, the City of Vancouver has purchased 14 sites for supportive housing all around Vancouver, including one site at Arbutus and West 17th! All purchased during the real estate bubble! These were expensive properties to buy. That is my point exactly, thank you for making it for me. We already had Little Mountain, all 6.2 hectares of it, already purchased back in the 1950s for $2million amortized over 50 years, tenants paid off the mortgage. It was bought and paid for! We don’t need to be buying up hotels and expensive properties on the west for supportive housing for drug addicts when we already have these large public housing properties purchased decades before the bubble when real estate was cheap. So let’s use our public housing real estate holdings more efficiently and let’s redevelop them into higher density public housing projects so that we can help ease the rental crunch that working class people are facing in Vancouver. The low vacancy rate in Vancouver for rentals and the very poor quality they are in is what forces working class people to take on 40 year mortgages at low interest rates. This lack of rental housing is partly behind the real estate bubble. So let’s use CMHC for what it was used for back in the 1950s when Little Mountain was created by CMHC–let’s build new public housing on our large public properties like Little Mountain that were already paid for decades ago.

Like or Dislike: 7  2

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 12:37 pm 63

@Choose a name: “I agree with the efficient use of land completely. However, having prime real estate sit empty for years isn’t efficient use either. You have to agree that the timing of this project is out of whack.”

Exactly correct. The land has sat empty since 2009. Even before demolition, the buildings were empty mostly since the summer of 2007 when most of the tenants were displaced. So for 2 years the buildings stood mostly empty with no one living in them. BC Housing could have been collecting rent on those units during those years. Once again, many tenants were paying market rent.

Hot debate. What do you think? 9  4

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 12:38 pm 64

“I said that LM was not an efficient means of delivering social housing.

Any reasonable person would acknowledge that is is prudent that government consider efficiency when delivering social goods. As an example I would imagine even the most die hard socialist would think a plan to create 200 social housing units by having the government purchase the Fairmont Pacific Rim would be a stupid use of resources.”

I agree. I pointed out the 1982 report (by Olson Architect) that recommends Little Mountain be redeveloped into a higher density 400 unit public housing project. I agree with that recommendation. I agree that it would be more efficient to increase density of public housing units at Little Mountain.

Like or Dislike: 4  4

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 12:39 pm 65

@Anonymous #45:

“Any reasonable person would acknowledge that is is prudent that government consider efficiency when delivering social goods. As an example I would imagine even the most die hard socialist would think a plan to create 200 social housing units by having the government purchase the Fairmont Pacific Rim would be a stupid use of resources.”

I agree that it is prudent that government consider efficiency when delivering social goods. I pointed out the 1982 report (by Olson Architect) that recommends Little Mountain be redeveloped into a higher density 400 unit public housing project. I agree with that recommendation. I agree that it would be more efficient to increase density of public housing units at Little Mountain.

I also think that purchasing the Fairmont Pacific Rim hotel for social housing in a stupid use of resources. The Olympic Village social housing units are the real life equivalent to the Fairmont Pacific Rim as social housing!!! I am sasying it is stupid to have these expensive condos at the Olympic Village being used for social housing when we have Little Mountain that is already paid for! Newsflash–the government actually has been purchasing hotels to be used for social housing. IT may not be the Fairmont Pacific Rim, but the provincial government has purchased hotels in the DTES for social housing. These hotels were purchased during the BUBBLE years!!! This is inefficient use of taxpayers dollars for social housing! Also, the City of Vancouver has purchased 14 sites for supportive housing all around Vancouver, including one site at Arbutus and West 17th! All purchased during the real estate bubble! These were expensive properties to buy. That is my point exactly, thank you for making it for me. We already had Little Mountain, all 6.2 hectares of it, already purchased back in the 1950s for $2million amortized over 50 years, tenants paid off the mortgage. It was bought and paid for! We don’t need to be buying up hotels and expensive properties on the west for supportive housing for drug addicts when we already have these large public housing properties purchased decades before the bubble when real estate was cheap. So let’s use our public housing real estate holdings more efficiently and let’s redevelop them into higher density public housing projects so that we can help ease the rental crunch that working class people are facing in Vancouver. The low vacancy rate in Vancouver for rentals and the very poor quality they are in is what forces working class people to take on 40 year mortgages at low interest rates. This lack of rental housing is partly behind the real estate bubble. So let’s use CMHC for what it was used for back in the 1950s when Little Mountain was created by CMHC–let’s build new public housing on our large public properties like Little Mountain that were already paid for decades ago.

Hot debate. What do you think? 6  5

Bull! Bull! Bull! Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 12:39 pm 66

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Soon it’ll be $50 for a loaf of bread. But do Vancouverites even eat bread?

Maybe it has too much gluten. Or how about that documentary I saw which talked about how wheat now has 3 times as many chromosomes? I feel I’m now an expert in agriculture as a result watching it.

But even if bread is $50 a loaf, I’ll still have my house, and it will probably be worth $150 million, and I can pay my mortgage by selling my used lawmower on craigslist.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 3  20

Troll Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 12:57 pm 67

@jesse:


The real debate around here should be what’s going to happen in 2013. The rest of 2012 is baked in. It will be fun to watch, but at this point it will not be surprising.

Totally agree with your analysis, I’d expect to see continued price declines through the fall and winter based on current sales and listing levels. Things get murky trying to peer into Spring 2013. Market behaviour after a 5-10% drop will be interesting to watch, the tug of war between increased buyer motivation thanks to improved affordability and potential seller fortitude among lost equity. And I’m sure different market segments will fare differently. My hunch is that there may be some price support (at least temporarily) as gummed up property chains get unstuck resulting in increased sales. Anecdotally I know of many buyers and sellers stuck in a property chain. More first time buyers thanks to lower prices and more willing trade up buyers thanks to smaller spreads between properties should help. However, at best I think that would result in arresting price drops or very small increases. Then of course there’s the macro factors of interest rates and economic conditions, which could easily tip the balance in one direction or the other. I think the current overall bearish sentiment is overdone, with doom around every corner. But I also believe we are collectively in a for a long period of substandard growth.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 28  3

mac Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 1:16 pm 68

@Troll: For what it’s worth–if I find your point interesting. Of course, it’s going to disappear in about 10 minutes from now, as will mine.

Hot debate. What do you think? 9  15

Best place on meth Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 1:28 pm 69

@Troll:

“Market behaviour after a 5-10% drop will be interesting to watch”

I have trouble seeing any renewed interest from buyers after a 5-10% drop.

Sales took off again in 2009 after a 30% improvement in affordability, 15% due to drop in prices and 15% due to drop in interest rates which added up to the 30% drop in monthly payments.

Chances of a meaningful drop in interest rates are about zero next year.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 31  3

Best place on meth Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 1:32 pm 70

@ScubaSteve:

I can only speak for big ticket sales on the West side, not other areas but there have been no sales over $5 million on the west side in September.

Inventory for this segment just hit a fresh high of 103 listings.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 23  1

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 1:32 pm 71

@Anonymous #45

“I said that LM was not an efficient means of delivering social housing. Any reasonable person would acknowledge that is is prudent that government consider efficiency when delivering social goods.”

You are failing to consider the cost to taxpayers to relocate the Little Mountain tenants. BC Housing paid the moving expenses of the Little Mountain tenants. In addition, the final 6 families that agreed to move at the end of 2009 each got an additional $3000 on top of moving expenses from BC Housing. Also, a large number of tenants were relocated into private sector rental housing. BC Housing is paying part of the rent to the private landlord for these tenants. BC Housing already does this with low income people through the Rental Assistance Program — subsidies to low income families who rent in the private market. But the Little Mountain tenants got an ENHANCED rental assistance program because BC Housing was so desperate to push them out of Little Mountain. Tenants had to negotiate their own deals with BC Housing, so there are range of subsidies and time limits. Given the delays in this redevelopment (already 5 years since first families were relocated), these enhanced subsidies will have to be extended. From Thomson, 2010, p. 245:

“Two of the families I interviewed received the enhanced rental subsidy, one for five years and the other for just two years. These time limits raise troubling questions if the social housing component at Little Mountain is not rebuilt before the enhanced rental subsidy expires. The family that negotiated a two-year benefit currently only has about one year left but redevelopment is still in the community consultation stage. I simply do not know what will happen to this family if the social housing is not rebuilt at Little Mountain by next year. In the other case, the family is receiving an enhanced benefit of $2050 per month for five years. Thus, BC Housing is paying $123,000 to relocate just this one family, excluding the moving allowance and other BC Housing costs associated with relocation. The main objective of redevelopment from the provincial government’s perspective is to raise money from the sale of the land to be reinvested back into supportive housing. Not only is the amount of the proceeds being kept secret from the public, the public also does not know how much BC Housing is spending to relocate families. If redevelopment had been phased and the tenants had been allowed to remain on-site throughout redevelopment, not only would that have prevented the displacement of the tenants, but also the relocation costs the public has had to pay could have been greatly reduced.”

It is more efficient to house these people at Little Mountain, which was already paid for, than to house them in private sector rental housing and ‘pay the mortgage of some private landlord’.

Hot debate. What do you think? 11  9

Someguy Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 1:35 pm 72

@Dog:
Yes, US Real Estate is on a tear since they’ve been throwing money at it. A Tear Down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K4rFUJs0bY

Like or Dislike: 2  2

Makaya Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 1:43 pm 73

@Best place on meth: no sales and 103 listings… that means MOI has reached infinity! Congratulations Vancouver West $5 million+ homeowners, aka la creme de la creme!

Your little butts are about to get savagely beaten up (to paraphrase what BPOM would say)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 31  1

gokou3 Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 1:43 pm 74

@Best place on meth: “I have trouble seeing any renewed interest from buyers after a 5-10% drop.”

And importantly, this will chase away most of the new and aspiring speculators.

Hot debate. What do you think? 13  2

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 1:44 pm 75

Did you guys see that? Over $2000 a month for five years just to relocate one family!!! And BC Housing had to relocate 194 families out of Little Mountain!!! Relocation is an inefficient way to deliver social housing!!! Far cheaper to house people on public land already paid for 50 years ago!!!

Hot debate. What do you think? 11  7

ScubaSteve Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 1:47 pm 76

@Best place on meth:

Thanks. With 103 listings over $5 million and 0 sales in September, that is significant. Do you know how many sales there were over $5 million in August?

That alone should drag the sales average down quite a bit. Since there will probably only be around 600 detached homes sold for the entire REBGV this month, each sale at $10 million increases the average around $15,000. Without those sales, the average will plunge.

Hot debate. What do you think? 13  1

Best place on meth Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 2:07 pm 77

@ScubaSteve:

I stand corrected, there was 1 sale in Sept for $16.1 million.

August had 7 sales over $5M on the west side, the highest were 12.2, 12, 9.2.

Hot debate. What do you think? 14  1

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 2:10 pm 78

Something that people sometimes forget is that the private rental market is subsidized to some extent. Yes, government intervention in the form of cheap credit and CMHC mortgage insurance has inflated real estate prices.

But rents in the private market are not free from government intervention. Government interventionist programs do subsidize some rents in the private sector.

BC’s Rental Assistance Program offers cash subsidies to renters with gross annual income of less than $35k per year and at least one dependent child. It started in 2006 and is the BC Liberal’s alternative to public housing for families. Under the Liberals, low income families with kids get subsidies in the private rental market so that purpose-built social housing can go to drug addicts.

BC’s SAFER (Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters) has offered subsidies to low income seniors who rent in the private sector since the late 1970s.

Manitoba has also had a program since the early 1980s. Marion Steele’s research has shown that these programs can have an inflationary effect on rents in the private sector. So private sector rents are not a pure reflection of economic fundamentals. Even the shelter component of welfare cheques is a form of housing subsidy in the private market.

Ontario has two sets of programs. Rent Supplements have been used in Ontario since the 1960s. Rent Supplements are where the state housing authority rents a suite in the private rental market from a private landlord. Someone on the waiting list for social housing moves into that private unit. They pay the same rent the would have paid in public housing, RGI, rent geared to income, about 30% of income. The state housing authority makes up the difference in the market rent to the private landlord. Some of these come with time limits and some do not.

More recently, Ontario has adopted what it calls Housing Allowance programs. These are like BC’s Rental Assistance Program/SAFER. Money goes straight to tenants who find their own rental unit.

The criticism from the left is that the subsidies do more to help landlords than low income tenants. Also, it does not address the supply issue. In order for these programs to work, the supply of private sector rental housing must already be in existance. This is why I prefer the public housing approach–it addresses supply and the benefit goes entirely to low income groups as opposed to private landlords (which actually may help fuel a real estate bubble, if you can rent out a property at an inflated rate based on a rental assistance/housing voucher program)

Hot debate. What do you think? 11  11

ScubaSteve Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 2:11 pm 79

@Best place on meth:

Thanks. The 16.1 million sale will definitely push the average up a bit. Still, seems like this market has fallen off a cliff. 7 sales vs 1 sale this month. We’ll see how the last half of the month goes…

Hot debate. What do you think? 10  1

Best place on meth Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 2:21 pm 80

@ScubaSteve:

The high end sales are also going for 10-20% off the latest asking price.

Late last month there was a sale that started out asking 19.8, dropped to 15.9 and sold for 12.0 after 53 days on market.

Hot debate. What do you think? 20  1

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 2:49 pm 81

Why are my comments being voted down? It is a simple fact that can be confirmed by reading any provincial housing ministry website that there are programs that subsidize renters in the private market. This does mean rents are not a pure reflection of economic fundamentals. There is some state intervention in the private rental market. I am not saying it is anything near the level of intervention we get for homeowners in the way of CMHC mortgage insurance and cheap credit. Of course real estate prices are inflated to the moon compared to economic fundamentals. But rents are inflated a little bit by programs that give subsidies to renters.

It is also a simple fact that many relocated Little Mountain tenants are getting rental subsidies in the private market from BC Housing. So BC Housing missed out on collecting rent from its units at Little Mountain AND had to pay (part of) relocated tenants’ rents in the private market!! That’s a double whammy of economic inefficiency! Talk about an inefficient delivery of a social program!!!

Hot debate. What do you think? 21  15

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 2:50 pm 82

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/403259–economist-predicts-big-drop-in-vancouver-housing-prices

Hot debate. What do you think? 22  3

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 2:52 pm 83

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

I just think there is an idiot or two that votes down every post. There is no logic as to why many posts have thumbs down

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 9  18

Dog Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 2:57 pm 84

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Apparently all the upward hype in the US real estate market is now gonna spill over into Canada.

Prices and sales should turn around next spring for those concerned about our market.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 3  15

gokou3 Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 3:05 pm 85

@Anonymous: And then you see this typical boomer rebuttal:

“I don’t believe it. I bought my house in Vancouver’s westside in the 70s. People said it was too expensive then. It has gone up many times in value. I don’t even have to buy RRSPs or save for retirement because my house is all the retirement plan I will ever need. And the best part is, I don’t have to wait to sell it before I get out the value. Thanks to home equity loans, I can enjoy my investment by going on vacations, leas luxury cars and go to the spa as often as I want. I told my kids to buy a house as soon as they can, even if it’s a condo, just to get started in the path. And they’ve all listened to me and have seen large price gains because of it too.”

This reads like a sarcastic pot. But if he’s serious, he doesn’t realize that he benefitted greatly from secularly declining interest rate over the past 30 years, which did the heavy lifting of increasing prices.

The last half of his post is particularly scary, namely relying on HELOC to support his lifestyle. Not surprising to the many regular readers here though. And these boomers with just little non-home assets will have to sell their home to fund their retirement. Good luck to his kids too.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 34  1

Turkey Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 3:06 pm 86

Price drop time! 790 E. Georgia is now listed for $1,349,900. As I recall, it was originally listed at $1,549,800.

Strathcona’s recent red-dot pattern seems a bit like a conveyor belt: dots that I haven’t seen for many months have surfaced again, and dots that languished for a long time (and didn’t sell) have gone underground.

Hot debate. What do you think? 18  0

Best place on meth Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 3:12 pm 87

@Turkey:

A 25 foot lot on the downtown east side for only 1.35 million.

What a steal.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 22  1

COLT Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 3:37 pm 88

12:45-1:00

WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON WITH THE VANCOUVER HOUSING MARKET?

We have been hearing a lot about the decline in housing sales in BC, but we seem to never get a straight answer about what is really behind the deflated real estate market. What is really going on in what once used to be such a hot market?

Phone: Tsur Somerville

Real Estate Foundation Professorship in Real Estate

Finance Director, UBC Centre for Urban Economics and Real Estate
LISTEN TO THE CKNW AUDIO VAULT AT 12:50PM SEPT 19 12:45-1:00

http://www.cknw.com/news/audiovault/index.aspx

Like or Dislike: 8  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 3:51 pm 89

@Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous:

There should be no subsidized housing. Government need to do is build more BC Housing units. Not give out money. It’s a win – win situation. More supply of low cost housing and decrease demand on rent for the regular market. Decrease rental income for investors will (should) lower the price investors are willing to pay for real estate.

Hot debate. What do you think? 8  12

Turkey Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 3:52 pm 90

@Best place on meth: Yes, But Renovating With Capital Letters Is Expensive.

Like or Dislike: 4  4

boogeybear Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 4:17 pm 91

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

I wouldn’t get worried about getting so many thumbs down on this blog. The blog can be highjacked by just a few people. I’ll start by giving myself the first thumbs down.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 3  13

Van Coffee Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 4:34 pm 92

Hey Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous) Says:

I will tell you why your posts are getting voted down – YOU MADE Y0UR POINT!

We all sat here and watched while you hi-jacked this blog and posted endlessly about little mountain. OK, I listened. Now SHUT UP!

You were born with one mouth and two ear for a reason. And guess what, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the no tax paying sucks that leach off the system living in taxpayer funded housing. Sell it all.

I am so sick and tired of pandering to the poor.

Now please just F*ck off. I come here for the stats.

VC

Hot debate. What do you think? 36  29

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 4:46 pm 93

how do they fit 2 bathrooms and 2 bedrooms in 629 square feet?

http://www.yattermatters.com/homes-for-sale/?area=Vancouver%2BWest&community=Kitsilano&type=Residential%2BAttached&bedrooms=Any&bathrooms=Any&minprice=200000&maxprice=900000&newlistings=1&nonce=41ed07a2db&search=true&submit_x=170&submit_y=17&prop=V971823

Like or Dislike: 8  0

Devore Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 5:15 pm 94

@Makaya:


Should home-ownership be discouraged?”

It should be neither encouraged not discouraged. People should select the option that best suits their needs and situation, without government policy (such as mortgage guarantees, deductible interest, tax breaks, grants) skewing the playing field in either direction, thus signaling to the market to focus on delivering the “preferred” option and marginalizing the other one.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 25  0

paulb Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 5:31 pm 95

New Listings 248
Price Changes 143
Sold Listings 87
TI:19206

http://www.paulboenisch.com

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 163  1

ScubaSteve Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:19 pm 96

Updated sales chart:

http://i50.tinypic.com/343qj2f.gif

Hot debate. What do you think? 14  0

crashcow Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:23 pm 97

Free live stand-up comedy event in Richmond.

Home Sweat Home – Can home ownership be achieved?

Featuring top local comedians: Tsur sewerville and Helmut Pastrick.

Some sample skits include:
“Are new ownership models such as co-ownership the key to getting a foothold in the market?”
“Vancouver is that market that is way different than any other kind of market.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 21  0

Boombust Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:30 pm 98

“Are new ownership models such as co-ownership the key to getting a foothold in the market?”

Isn’t that the “Bunk With Me” model I have heard so much about?

Like or Dislike: 7  0

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:36 pm 99

@Van Coffee:

I disappointed at the disrespectful tone of your comment and your lack of compassion for the poor. I am even more disappointed that 17 people have voted your comment up. It’s a sad reflection of our society. You will be happy to learn that after today I will not comment on this blog anymore because I see most do not appreciate what I have to contribute.

“And guess what, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the no tax paying sucks that leach off the system living in taxpayer funded housing.”

This is the most disappointing part of your comment of all. There were two groups living at Little Mountain: 1.) families with kids and 2.) seniors. If we didn’t have any public housing at all or any rental assistance programs whatsoever, many of the families from Little Mountain would become homeless. Homeless families would result in the children being apprehended by this Ministry for Children and Families. Then taxpayers would be paying to raise those children until their 18–and not just for their housing, for all of their costs. As for the seniors, these are old people who are physically unable to work. I guess you wouldn’t care to see them in the street. Some of them are even war veterans who sacrificed the prime years of their lives to fight against the Nazis. Without public housing or rental subsidies, homelessness, criminality, and social disorder would all increase. Low wage workers wouldn’t even be able to afford to live in Vancouver and work in the low wage jobs there. That’s why these programs are in the public interest.

Hot debate. What do you think? 28  19

gokou3 Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:38 pm 100

Latest email from Silver, an Intracorp pre-sale condo project:

“It’s Heating Up at Silver

It’s been an extraordinary September so far and as a result, our first week brought us six new homeowners. If you’ve been considering a new home purchase, then you should definitely stop by and see what’s happening at Silver.”

Good for them, 6 sales in the first week of Sep. When are we back to the good old days of first-day sellouts?

Hot debate. What do you think? 16  1

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:53 pm 101

Canadian loose lending practices and zero interest rate policy have inflated housing beyond reach for many young Canadian families, but fear not, there’s always the Laneway House! Nothing like papering over bad policy with more bad policy. Especially if it’s with two ply!

Like or Dislike: 3  0

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:54 pm 102

“YOU MADE Y0UR POINT!”

Actually, I have made several points today. My posts are the only ones that deal with the topic at hand–the Little Mountain redevelopment. I think my posts have added a great deal of insight to this topic that without me this blog would have gone without. Let’s recap the several points I have made:

-Little Mountain redevelopment is different from Olympic Village because it involved displacement of 194 families

-Displacement and demolition make this redevelopment look like urban renewal from the 1950s and 1960s–shocking that Vancouver, which bills itself as a progressive city is bringing back this discredited approach. (Aside: Toronto is redeveloping Regent Park public housing in a far more sophisticated manner, that began with consultation before anyone was displaced)

-Little Mountain is being sold to the billionaire Tiah family of Malaysia, the father of the president of Holborn Properties was involved in a stock exchange scandal in Kuala Lumpur in 2002

-After Little Mountain was mostly emptied a BC Housing staff member set up a marijuana grow operation in their unit

-The Little Mountain tenants’ rents more than covered the mortgage for Little Mountain and covered two-thirds of the total cost of Little Mountain. This is a very moderate subsidy considering the public good it delivers and the subsidies homeowners get

-When we had a production based economy, public housing projects like Little Mountain were crucial for housing people who fueled the local economy and worked in the factories

-Little Mountain was designed after ‘homes for heroes’ in Britain, public housing for war veterans

-The initial Little Mountain tenants were rigourously screened and people with unkempt homes were rejected

Hot debate. What do you think? 19  19

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 6:54 pm 103

@ Van Coffee

The points I made today, continued:

-Unlike public housing in Toronto and the USA, white people continued to live at Little Mountain right up until the very end, although it did become more racially diverse over time

-The right wing academic discourse that says homeowners make better citizens than renters is partially behind the real estate bubble in the US. Instead of putting poor people in public housing projects, poor people were given cheap credit to buy their own homes. The public costs of a real estate bubble far exceed the public costs of subsidies in public housing (How can you not care about that–Don’t you care about the economy and where our resources go?)

-It is cheaper to house poor people at Little Mountain because it was purchased 50 years ago when real estate values were low. This is cheaper than building social housing units at the Olympic Village, buying up hotels on the DTES during a real estate bubble, buying up property in Vancouver to build supportive housing, and relocating families into private sector housing with subsidies

-If cities like New York and Hong Kong have room for public housing within city limits, then surely land constraints aren’t so severe in Vancouver that we can’t do public housing within the City of Vancouver

-Some relocated tenants from Little Mountain have been housed in private sector rental housing with enhanced government subsidies going to landlords. At least one family is being subsidized to the tune of $2050 per month for five years to live in the private rental market. This is inefficient use of public resources.

-The fact that renters in the private market are being subsidized under a variety of programs (Rental Assistance Program, SAFER, Rent Supplements, Housing Allowances) means that there is state intervention in the private rental market leading to rent inflation. State intervention means that rents do not reflect economic fundamentals like incomes entirely. This is a challenge to a major point made by real estate bears. Many real estate bears believe rents in the private market reflect economic fundamentals. They are not considering the subsidies that some renters in the private market are receiving. Real estate bears who are not considering these subsidies need to change their economic models. If rents are inflated with rental assistance programs, this can also put upward pressure on real estate prices and be at least a minor component that has propped up this real estate bubble. Instead of telling me to shut up, can anyone deal with this point?

Hot debate. What do you think? 23  21

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:06 pm 104

Wow! My comment is already voted down to be hidden. There was real estate bull on here the other day who said this blog votes down any comment that goes against the ideological grain. I guess they were right. Geez, now I am siding with a RE bull!!! Argh!

Can anyone use logic and rationality to respond to this point, or is it the case that all you are capable of is hurling personal insults and voting down comments into oblivion. Specifically, I think this blog should deal with this point, if you are going to keep any level of respect from me:

The fact that renters in the private market are being subsidized under a variety of programs (Rental Assistance Program, SAFER, Rent Supplements, Housing Allowances) means that there is state intervention in the private rental market leading to rent inflation. State intervention means that rents do not reflect economic fundamentals like incomes entirely. This is a challenge to a major point made by real estate bears. Many real estate bears believe rents in the private market reflect economic fundamentals. They are not considering the subsidies that some renters in the private market are receiving. Real estate bears who are not considering these subsidies need to change their economic models. If rents are inflated with rental assistance programs, this can also put upward pressure on real estate prices and be at least a minor component that has propped up this real estate bubble. Instead of telling me to shut up, can anyone deal with this point?

Hot debate. What do you think? 22  21

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:10 pm 105

@Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous: You are the embodiment of a good point made badly.

Hot debate. What do you think? 17  9

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:13 pm 106

@Anonymous:

“You are the embodiment of a good point made badly.”

So you also don’t like rental subsidies in the private market but you think public housing is even worse? You don’t like my left wing spin on things?

Hot debate. What do you think? 10  14

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:17 pm 107

Bye bye Vancouver Condo Info. I was wrong to think this was a place for intelligent debate.

Hot debate. What do you think? 19  23

Scott Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:42 pm 108

@Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous: For what it’s worth I don’t understand why your getting voted down by people either. Best I can figure is that people are used to the random chatter and don’t like so much on-topic comments. Either that or they’re Holborn agents

Although I didn’t agree with all your points, I do agree with most of them and there was a lot in there that I didn’t know. Thanks for commenting, sorry the jerks dragged you down.

Hot debate. What do you think? 19  6

xyz Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 7:50 pm 109

@Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous:

I wouldn’t get too worked up about it, there are some people here that just vote down stuff for sport (evening hours is also when people are hitting the booze), if your post was somewhat intelligent it was likely by done by trolls anyways. (sorry haven’t read the comments yet)

I’ve had a few comments voted down by trolls, I don’t take it personally or feel it is an overall reflection of the site.

Hot debate. What do you think? 20  7

fixie guy Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:02 pm 110

98 Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says: “If rents are inflated with rental assistance programs, this can also put upward pressure on real estate prices and be at least a minor component that has propped up this real estate bubble. Instead of telling me to shut up, can anyone deal with this point?”

It ignore market segments. Renters on assistance are the least likely to live in structures driving market appreciation. It also ignores a basic fundamental; what percentage of the rental market is held by subsidized renters? You may be, at best, insignificantly right.
I do agree that, except in a simplistic tautological sense, rents are never perfectly reflective of incomes. Being devoid of the incentives driving the buyer’s market they’re close.

Like or Dislike: 5  1

Romeo Jordan Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:13 pm 111

Well, hopefully we’ll see close to 400 listings tomorrow.

Like or Dislike: 3  4

YVR2ZRH Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:38 pm 112

@COLT:

We should archive this. He’s basically on record of saying prices +/- 2%. He also said something about incomes catching up. Well, other than the fact I just fled the country to get a life – - I haven’t seen significant income increases for a long time and given the state of the economy, I don’t see them in the near future.

He’s got a story and sticking to it. He just does not see that we have any type of problem or at least he refuses to phrase it in such a way that gives a negative forecast. When asked if prices would fall more – - he could have said “Probably”. That’s what I would have said as a diplomatic likely outlook. However, he said 1.5% is not a number that means anything.

Hot debate. What do you think? 9  1

HAM Solo Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:38 pm 113

@32 bag & tag

I think to some degree the boat may already have sailed on US REITs…but I tend to be a little risk averse when it comes to momentum-type trades…even though my trend-following friends might say the US market is safe through year-end.

One stock that looks reasonably good here is Starwood Property Trust (STWD US Equity). It owns a portfolio of 2nd mortgages and subordinated debt on US (and some european) RE, with a big portion of that being hotels. Yield of 6-7 percent is reasonably covered and the underlying properties have a fairly good loan-to-value. I owned it a little lower down and sold out around $22. If you have a greater risk tolerance than me, you could conceivably buy below $24 with a Bernanke-assisted target of $28-$30 and take coupon along the way.

Like or Dislike: 1  2

Keeping An Eye On The Pimps Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:47 pm 114

Sometimes I worry needlessly, like the time that real estate expert guy, along with the world class city media, took those Chinese billionaires on an helicopter tour.

I thought for sure they would have bought everything in site and there would be nothing left to buy.

Hot debate. What do you think? 7  3

Patiently Waiting Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 8:59 pm 115

Please come back, I’m begging you…

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/403240–premier-wants-more-people-in-skilled-trades

The premier is also appealing for British Columbians who left the province for work elsewhere in Canada to return.

“Come home to our province. Find that job here, it’s waiting for you. We need your skills.”

—

This is so freaking pathetic. Is it that bad or is Christy Crunch just an idiot? Well OK, its both.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 23  2

vangrl Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:01 pm 116

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/403259–economist-predicts-big-drop-in-vancouver-housing-prices

a comment on the article

” Realtor here:
As a realtor I would love to see price continue to go up. That means there are buyers and the market keeps moving. Realtors, mortgage brokers and people that owe houses dont like to think prices will go down or else nobody will buy, or finance. The truth is prices are going down. In my office there are over 100 realtors everyone is full of listing with very few buyer. 35% of my clients over the last year that sold have all decided to rent Before that it only happened twice in 12 years.. As much as I respect Bob Rennie for being successful he is out to lunch if he doesnt think prices are going down. Foreign investment is going down because immigration has tighten up, mortgages have tighened up and also dont forget when the NDP goes into power that will not help the economny. ”

not that it wasn’t obvious, but kinda nice seeing some realtors speaking up

Hot debate. What do you think? 12  2

HAM Solo Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:05 pm 117

@ pro public housing

I am sympathetic, to a degree, to your plight. Points in your favour: a) you started posting under an actual name, b) you are trying to make a point that rent subsidies exist and that they serve to prop up house pices, fair enough.

On the other hand, I’m not sure the city needs any more units of housing built of any kind. Just adds to fundamental overcapacity of housing stock. If the COV wants to have housing projects, why not just wait for private developers to go bankrupt in the bust and buy up semi-completed projects.

Hot debate. What do you think? 14  0

Patiently Waiting Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:08 pm 118

It think its in bad taste to vote down on-topic posts just because you disagree with them. I save my thumbs down for obvious trolling and personal attacks. That’s it.

OTOH Pro-public, remember the down votes on your posts represent only a small percentage of those who read them.

Hot debate. What do you think? 18  3

Bag it and tag it Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:23 pm 119

@HAM Solo: Thx to all that provided input on US REIT’s. I tend to agree it’s past time to buy them…yields are now low. I have some US cash I’m my account I’m looking to deploy…

Like or Dislike: 1  0

b5baxter Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:28 pm 120

@HAM Solo:
“…the COV wants to have housing projects, why not just wait for private developers to go bankrupt …”

I have heard stories about this happening in the past. Weren’t some of the Shaughnessy mansions converted to housing for war veterans when the previous owners couldn’t afford to pay property taxes after on of Vancouver’s infamous bubbles burst.

FWIW, I thought Pro Pub Housing made some good points about Little Mountain.888888888888888888888888888888888

Hot debate. What do you think? 11  1

Dan in Calgary Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:30 pm 121

@Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says: “Wow! My comment is already voted down to be hidden. There was real estate bull on here the other day who said this blog votes down any comment that goes against the ideological grain. I guess they were right. Geez, now I am siding with a RE bull!!! Argh!”

There is indeed a certain element of groupthink here, but it doesn’t define the blog; it’s just one aspect. Truly, it’s a great blog.

There are a few people who have been around for a while, and who sometimes act like the long-term employee who claims the same seat in the lunchroom day after day as if it’s theirs personally. But I believe they are in the minority.

I enjoy reading all comments except those of obvious trolls.

Not everyone who reads exercises their keyboard thumb.

Stay and “speak your piece”. Don’t worry if some people can’t “hold their peace”. If someone gets snotty, oh well, shrug shrug. The new rating system allows me to read hidden comments with much greater ease. I used to have to cut and paste them into a Notebook.exe window to read them.

Hot debate. What do you think? 11  0

jesse Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:32 pm 122

@COLT: I transcribed (paraphrased) a bit of Tsur’s comments, in case people can’t take listening to 5 minutes of CKNW:
Simi Sara: lot of emails: why can’t industry people admit prices going down?
Tsur Somerville: prices flat down in some areas
market now weaker in a long time [jesse: worst since 2008]
Simi: Is the market collapsing?
Tsur: No
expectation market will adjust by being slow
off 1.5% from peak. That is “flat to me”
In other words $1M house went down $15K
Simi: but this is a gradual process, right?
Tsur: Sees relatively flat prices, perhaps slight declines while incomes catch up
Simi: is this overdue?
Tsur: If people think prices are going to fall 40% are smoking the same stuff people where prices going up 10%/yr: interest rates low.
Thinks people are balking at price levels and looking at world economy
Simi: but people hearing market slowing down
Tsur: Biggest piece that worries him is the contraction in sales. Slower sales as in past 8-9 months. Prices not going up the way they used to.
Gangbuster prices of past couple of years not the same over the region. FV lower rates of increase than Bby/Vancouver for example.
Multimillion properties are coming back down.
Simi: prices going to go down more?
Tsur: No idea. Prices slightly up or down is his estimate. Nothing to push prices off a cliff, no oversupply, financial distress, so no dramatic change.
//
We’ll see!

Maybe someone can capture this interview word-for-word for the record.

Hot debate. What do you think? 15  0

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:40 pm 123

Thank you Patiently Waiting, HAM Solo, Fixie Guy and Scott. I guess I over-reacted.

Even though I have a different ideological perspective than most of the commenters on here as I am left wing and most of you are probably more right wing than me, I do think we can learn from one another. I learn the most when you respond intelligently to some of the issues I raise.

@ fixie guy:

“It ignore market segments. Renters on assistance are the least likely to live in structures driving market appreciation. It also ignores a basic fundamental; what percentage of the rental market is held by subsidized renters?”

Good points. I think you are mostly right. But I do think many renters on the Rental Assistance Program are probably living in basement suites. These basement suites could be located in million dollar crack shacks in Vancouver–these are the types of homes that have driven market appreciation.

@HAM Solo:

“I’m not sure the city needs any more units of housing built of any kind. Just adds to fundamental overcapacity of housing stock. If the COV wants to have housing projects, why not just wait for private developers to go bankrupt in the bust and buy up semi-completed projects.”

Very good points. I might completely agree with this. It’s fun to think of those gleaming condo towers ending up as our next generation of public housing! It’s about time we had public housing towers in Vancouver as opposed to the low rise Little Mountain example!!! The problem with this will be political will and political capital. I can imagine that a lot of people wouldn’t want to see these trendy condo buildings sold to the govt for public housing. Middle class homeowners who live in older homes that are falling apart would not like this. So it would be politically difficult. I don’t think the supply of ownership housing and the supply of public rental housing is quite so easily transferable. In order to be politically palatable, public housing has to be very modest with no frills so that owners feel they are getting something better. Postwar public housing was designed in a very utilitarian way with no frills so that it would not compete with private sector housing.

Hot debate. What do you think? 13  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:41 pm 124

@ HAM Solo

On the other hand, I’m not sure the city needs any more units of housing built of any kind. Just adds to fundamental overcapacity of housing stock. If the COV wants to have housing projects….

The mayor needs a ribbon to cut and a feather in his cap.

Like or Dislike: 5  0

BLISTINGAGENT Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:42 pm 125

So we have a Westside property owner who sold at the top of the market to a dumb overseas buyer with more money than sense and no clue about the local market? And now they are renting units instead? Sounds like the province did exactly what most readers of this blog would advise them to do (myself included.)

I do support some degree of social housing – possibly more than we have now – but the Little Mountain site was still very due for redevelopment in my opinion. Also I really liked the proposals I saw, they looked like Arbutus Walk which is an area I really like.

Like or Dislike: 5  2

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:42 pm 126

Thank you b5baxter and Dan in Calgary. I guess I need to lighten up.

Like or Dislike: 9  0

Not Ready To Be Slave Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:50 pm 127

in case anyone want to share some truth with the participants of “Canada’s largest real estate tradeshow for Asian Buyers and Investors on September 22nd at Metrotown Hilton Hotel”, can be fun

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/bnc/vol/3254507199.html

Like or Dislike: 4  1

Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 9:53 pm 128

@HAM Solo

“If the COV wants to have housing projects, why not just wait for private developers to go bankrupt in the bust and buy up semi-completed projects.”

I like this idea. I wonder if the Little Mountain developer will be one those ones that goes bust. I wonder if the Little Mountain development will only be half completed. I wonder if ground will ever break in the first place at Little Mountain.

It hardly makes sense to sell the Little Mountain land to a developer just to buy it back from them after they go bankrupt in the real estate bust.

Like or Dislike: 8  0

Anonymous Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:06 pm 129

@Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous: you made all the armchair economists disappeared.

“Instead of telling me to shut up, can anyone deal with this point?”
please continue your points! besides arguing dollars and cents, listing and sales, they dont know anything else.

Hot debate. What do you think? 6  4

gokou3 Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:07 pm 130

@Pro-public housing (previously known as Anonymous: Yes, although I don’t agree with many of the things you said, I appreciate you spent the effort to convey your ideas thoroughly.

+1 for patiently waiting:
“I think its in bad taste to vote down on-topic posts just because you disagree with them. I save my thumbs down for obvious trolling and personal attacks. That’s it.”

Hot debate. What do you think? 13  3

Dog Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:32 pm 131

Sales low to the end of the year.
Prices up into the end on low volume.
US and Canadian prices up on momentum.

Like or Dislike: 2  7

BLISTINGAGENT Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 10:55 pm 132

As a few people have mentioned, this week CBC’s The National is spending time each night looking at the slowing Canadian real estate market.

Tonight they had their “The Bottom Line” panel on, and obviously they also discussed housing. All four of the regular panel members seem pretty much in love with CMHC mortgage insurance, the bank economist and union economist alike! They consider it to be the saviour of the Canadian real estate market. To paraphrase a comment made by the union economist, “Mitt Romney wouldn’t like it, therefore it must be good!”

Tomorrow they are featuring Vancouver … should be interesting.

Like or Dislike: 7  0

oneangryslav2 Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:06 pm 133

@BLISTINGAGENT:


“Mitt Romney wouldn’t like it, therefore it must be good!”

I think that Mittens is an entitled know-little prick, but that’s a ridiculous quote by an “expert.”

Like or Dislike: 7  0

oneangryslav2 Says:
September 19th, 2012 at 11:14 pm 134

Crazy bull anecdote of the day (week?):

My brother lives in North Burnaby in the area bounded by Hastings and Parker, Willingdon and Gilmore. His neigbhour a couple of doors down (whom both he and I know as we played soccer on the same youth team) many years ago) tore down a nondescript bungalow and built himself a large house. Almost to the day of the one-year anniversary of the place having been completed this friend is sitting at home watching television early in the evening (this happened a couple of weeks ago), when he hears the doorbell ring. He opens it to find a gentleman standing there asking if the house was for sale. The friend asks sarcastically “do you see a for sale sign?” “No”, responds to (as it turns out) real estate agent. The real estate agent continues, “would you be willing to sell it, anyway?”

The friend thinks about it for a second and says “sure, the price is $1.3 million dollars” thinking that would scare the real estate agent away. Anyway, long story short, the real estate guy goes to his car to call someone, comes back and says “okay!” Now my brother thinks that his home is worth about a million dollars.

Crazy! I’m going to get in touch with our friend to find out more of the details.

Like or Dislike: 8  0

fixie guy Says:
September 20th, 2012 at 5:39 am 135

126 BLISTINGAGENT Says: “All four of the regular panel members seem pretty much in love with CMHC mortgage insurance, the bank economist and union economist alike!”

No doubt. It’s an indirect and unadvertised stimulus program targeted directly at their industry, one maintained for so long now that its removal is perceived as somehow unfair. “Canadian taxpayer dollars should funnel into real estate, just as it’s ‘always’ done.”

Like or Dislike: 6  0