Real Estate Developers are upset about the foreign buyer tax, arguing that the only real way to make homes more affordable is to increase supply.
Also it would be great if we could increase real estate affordability without lowering the price of anyones real estate.
A month before the tax was announced, Anne McMullin, president and CEO of UDI, e-mailed the Premier warning that any taxes aimed at curbing demand would not make Metro Vancouver more affordable without the stimulation of more supply. And, she added, increasing taxes might severely undermine the value of people’s homes “perhaps even destabilizing our industry, which represents 25 per cent of British Columbia’s economy,” she wrote.
Some experts point out that the foreign buyer market was already showing signs of ‘fatigue’ so the tax was completely unnecessary.
Experts cannot say whether this downturn in foreign owners will remain a long-term trend, but immediately after the Premier announced the tax on the morning of July 25, industry insiders were warning it could badly hurt one of the province’s most important economic drivers.
Read the full article in the Globe and Mail.
Some people wonder how people make ends meet in a very expensive city with very low wages, but there’s plenty of economic opportunity beyond grow-ops, you just need take advantage of one our exceptional local specialties.
Of course you could go to the source of the money fountain and flip condos or become a realtor, but if you don’t have the time for a 6 week course here’s another opportunity: Condo Lineups.
If you can be the manikin who pretends to be very excited about a new local development you can earn $1800 in less than a week, that works out to about $15 an hour less expenses!
This tiny job posting speaks volumes about the Vancouver real estate market. Developers have convinced speculators that demand is so high, there’s enough room for the average person to make an extra few dollars flipping condos to regular folks. Now that regular folks aren’t fighting to buy pre-construction, this may be the first sign that speculative capital is drying up.
Read the full article over at better dwelling.com
Village Whisperer has been following the MAC-gate ‘fake foreign buyer’ story for a while and recently reported the Real Estate Council of BC decision in that case: a temporary suspension and small fine for one Realtor.
But what about the other MAC employees who played rolls in this story, why no repercussions for that deceit?
Here’s the loophole: condo salespeople who are not realtors are not ruled by the Real Estate Council and can apparently make any claim they want before passing a potential buyer off to a realtor to sign the legal documents.
Read all about it over at Whisperers blog.
By now everyone knows about the high cost of the Olympic Village project.
Current estimates are that it will cost taxpayers between $400 – $600 million to pay this off.
There are 68 units still left unsold over the last six years, but over at the ‘Canada House’ building it looks like a number of units have been bought and flipped, at least one for more than $400k profit in a month.
Hat tip to Mac who pointed out this article in the Province.
So whats going on here? Should these units have been priced higher or considering the tough sales across this project were they right to unload them quickly even if there were buyers willing to pay more?
Ex-kitsie pointed out this story:
Justice Minister Susan Anton has introduced Bill 17 (Miscellaneous Amendment Act, 2014) which includes a proposed amendment to Section 23 of the Real Estate Development Marketing Act (REDMA).
This is the legislation that governs the marketing of real estate by developers to consumers. The amendment would make a purchase agreement enforceable against a purchaser where the developer’s disclosure agreement included misrepresentation of a material fact and the developer was not aware of the misrepresentation at the time the agreement was entered into. This amendment would remove the ability of the purchaser to terminate or renegotiate the agreement upon discovery of the misrepresentation. So… the developer can include unsubstantiated inaccuracies while still enforcing the purchase agreement against the purchaser who relied upon the misrepresentation. Of course, we all know developers would never lie.
We’re not sure if this is a big deal or not, here’s a link to the amendment, you’ll have to scroll down about half way to find the relevant section. Any comments on whether this is a dramatic change to the Real Estate Development Marketing Act or just a minor adjustment?