Lessons to learn.

No matter how much you know, there’s always something new you can learn.

From this article in the Vancouver Sun there are at least 3 lessons we can learn:

1) Shaughnessy is a ‘tony’ neighborhood:

Laura De Munain moved into her family’s Oak Street house on the outskirts of the tony Shaughnessy neighbourhood in April. While working from home, the pregnant lawyer soon noticed groups of two or three people regularly stumbling around her back alley in a daze.

2) You can’t force absent owners to evict partiers from their property:

Police answered her first call to their non-emergency line and toured the property, but they “said they didn’t see any evidence of consistent living here,” according to De Munain. She says city staff referred her back to the police when she complained about drug users and squatters in June and asked the city to force the owner to board the home up properly.

3: Government hears you, but they’re not sure you mean what you say:

In the weeks leading up to this month’s civic election, a blog showcasing “beautiful empty homes” of the west side and a proposal from COPE mayoral candidate Meena Wong for a vacant home tax gained support from residents simmering with anger over Vancouver becoming a “hedge city” for foreign real estate investors.  A poll last month showed 72 per cent of respondents thought such a tax a “very good” or “good” proposal, and only 18 per cent deemed it “very bad” or “bad.”

Vision Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs said he, like many, finds it offensive when a perfectly good home is held empty for speculative reasons, but he doesn’t know that such a tax is “legally possible or even desirable.”

You’ve either learned something new from this writeup or it’s been a complete waste of your time. In either case you can read the full original article here.

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
patriotz
Member

@previous: “consider an incremental tax on luxury housing”

The NDP government proposed just this about 20 years ago (back then “luxury” meant > $500K) and backed off in the face of fierce opposition from homeowners.

Municipal governments do NOT have the power to do this.

So that means it’s not going to happen, until (just maybe) the NDP gets back in power, or (just just maybe) the Greens become the provincial government in some misty future.

Going back on topic, the article doesn’t mention that neighbours have the right to sue owners of nuisance properties.

Westside Realtor
Guest
Westside Realtor

More calls from HAM owners asking us what we think of the market here and if they should consider selling.

The answer: weakening and Yes (although as a realtor we always have a bias to see a transaction)….sell now while there is still a bit of a bid is my personal point of view.

WSR

StupidityCheck
Guest
StupidityCheck

The apathy of this city to this problem is pathetic.

southseacompany
Member
southseacompany

“Bank of Canada poised to extend longest interest-rate pause”, Montreal Gazette

http://montrealgazette.com/business/bank-of-canada-poised-to-extend-longest-interest-rate-pause

“Stephen Poloz is poised to extend the Bank of Canada’s interest-rate pause to the longest since World War II, helping Canadian bond yields resist the pressure of prospective tightening by the U.S. Federal Reserve.”

“Poloz will keep his benchmark overnight rate at 1 percent Dec. 3 according to all 22 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News through Nov. 28, stretching the pause that began with Mark Carney in 2010. That would make it the longest since February 1944 to September 1950, exceeding the October 1950 to January 1955 hiatus.”

“The period of unchanged rates “does say something about the depth of the financial crisis and the anemic recovery,” said Eric Lascelles, chief economist at Royal Bank of Canada Global Asset Management in Toronto.”

chilled
Member
chilled

I think I am going to fucking snap if I see one more Van-Idiot dressed in a winter parka and shorts.

Marco
Guest
Marco

@4 Southseacompany company.

Thanks for the link. Interest rate rise coming.

“Poloz won’t raise rates until the fourth quarter of next year, according to a Bloomberg economist survey. The quarter- point increase forecast for Canada compares with an estimated Fed move to 1 percent from 0.25 percent over that time.”

“Canadian rates exist in a global context,” he said. “As we saw over the last several years, to do anything out of line with the U.S. behemoth is to introduce remarkable currency strength that is quite undesirable for Canada.”

Lock step with the Fed.

Cheers.

Marco
Guest
Marco

From the blog post:

‘Vision Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs said he, like many, finds it offensive when a perfectly good home is held empty for speculative reasons, but he doesn’t know that such a tax is “legally possible or even desirable.”’

Lol, and I wonder why they’re all treading lightly on the subject. Could it be the influx of money? Mums the word.

Cheers.

space889
Guest
space889

@patriotz – and you just have like $100K lying around to pay the $300+/hr lawyer fees for the civil court case? And how exactly do you expect to collect any damages since that’s your job, not the police’s job? Use harsh language, like those marines in Aliens, to make the owner pay up?

patriotz
Member

@8: “and you just have like $100K lying around to pay the $300+/hr lawyer fees for the civil court case?”

I didn’t say it was free, just possible. I think $100K is out of line anyway, that’s the kind of money lawyers get for major personal injury lawsuits. You don’t need a top gun for this kind of thing.

“And how exactly do you expect to collect any damages since that’s your job, not the police’s job”

That’s the easy part. If you get a judgement you put a lien on the property and if the owner doesn’t pay up the property is sold by court order.

patriotz
Member

Many homeowners struggle to balance retirement, debt repayment: survey

It used to be unthinkable to go into retirement with debt.

Shut It Down Already
Guest
Shut It Down Already

Properties held empty still attract taxes for local services which are going unused. There’s also lost opportunity cost on capital, lost income (rent), and capital gains payable on any increase in value come time of sale.

Presumably anybody who is happy to incur all those costs would likely also cough up for any additional “absent owner” taxes.

VMD
Member
Manulife survey suggests 27% don’t count mortgages as debt “In a survey of 2,373 homeowners across Canada conducted in September and released Monday by Manulife Bank of Canada, more than a quarter of respondents said they would still consider themselves to be debt free, despite having various types of debt. Twenty-seven per cent said they would consider themselves to be debt-free even if they had a mortgage. Almost as many, 23 per cent, said they’d consider themselves debt-free even if they still owed money on a car loan. And 11 per cent said they would consider themselves debt-free despite keeping a balance on a line of credit.” “Considering that the survey looked only at people who own homes, it is perhaps not surprising that almost a fifth of them said they planned on accessing at least some of the equity… Read more »
Marco
Guest
Marco

@12 VMD

Thanks for the article.
This stuck out at me:

‘About 10 per cent said they planned to live in their homes but borrow against them in retirement. Another eight per cent said they planned on accessing that money by downsizing to cheaper housing.’

Wow I wonder if these people have ever heard of negative equity. An underwater mortgage. If or when this baby blows look out below…

Cheers.

paulb
Member
Active Member

New Listings 176
Price Changes 61
Sold Listings 95
TI:13166

http://www.paulboenisch.com

Best place on meth
Member
Best place on meth
A luxury tax on speculators isn’t that hard. I would even apply it to landlords, if they can afford investment properties than they can afford to pay more. City hall has the power to set property taxes so: Double the residential property taxes across the board, then give a 50% rebate on those taxes to all owners who can prove they live in the property. This way the city avoids having to do any investigating themselves, the onus is on the property owners to claim their rebate. Now all speculators/investors/landlords/corporations who own homes in Vancouver will be paying double the current tax and the city can put the extra cash straight into a social housing fund. Start building new complexes immediately. Now sit back and watch many of those empty properties get sold or rented in a hurry putting downward… Read more »
Shut It Down Already
Guest
Shut It Down Already

There’s already a property tax rebate for people who live in their properties, and therefore a higher rate for those who don’t. It’s called the Home Owner Grant. The rebate is eliminated once the assessed value reaches about $1.2m.

Best place on meth
Member
Best place on meth

#16

That’s what, $500?

I’m talking about real money here, not couch change.

Devore
Member
Devore

@15 Best place on meth

“City hall has the power to set property taxes so:

Double the residential property taxes across the board, then give a 50% rebate on those taxes to all owners who can prove they live in the property.”

That’s already how it works. Owners-occupiers get something like a 40% discount on property taxes in Vancouver.

Note that while “landlords and speculators can “easily” afford it”, that means that renters will pay more. It is kind of ironic that renters actually pay higher property taxes than owners, but that’s Vancouver logic in action.

space889
Guest
space889

@Devore – I guess BPOM never learned the meaning of “unintended consequences”.

patriotz
Member

@18: “Owners-occupiers get something like a 40% discount on property taxes in Vancouver.”

It appears that way to the homeowner, but how it actually works is that the provincial government pays part of the property taxes. The city receives the same taxes in any case and indeed is legally required to charge the same taxes.

colonist
Guest
colonist

er… this has been current in the UK, if that is of interest, for many years and empty second homes are subject to an additional Council Tax, certainly in Wales and Scotland. What’s more, the owners pay without a murmur. Can’t see the problem with this kind of tax myself – if you are rich enough to keep an empty property, you’re rich enough to pay the tax!

Barb Rennie
Guest
Barb Rennie

It’s so funny that the City hesitates to charge luxury tax when the foreign investors that I know wouldn’t bat an eye if property taxes doubled or tripled. It’s nothing because they just want somewhere to park their money.

Slagathor
Guest
Slagathor

I’d willing play the extra tax on a property I’m not occupying but then, I’d demand to be reimbursed for the municipal services I’m not using since the city would have gone to great lengths to prove I’m not using them.

cris
Guest
cris

#23

“I’d demand to be reimbursed for the municipal services I’m not using”

Showcase of good citizenship.

cris
Guest
cris

#23

Now you know why drivers don’t let you merge onto HWY 1, and let you run into the ditch.

wpDiscuz