Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

User avatar
Rosemary1
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 984
Joined: Jan 24th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

Post by Rosemary1 »

Funny how Council and attendees spent so much time debating 'affordable housing;. There is an accepted definition that not even our elected politician in all their wisdom seemed to know about

Affordable' housing is defined as costing less than 30% of before-tax household. income. This definition is a widely recognized standard used by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). That aside...

Private developers are not in the business of providing affordable housing as such. But since they are in the business of making a profit, I would think they may want to look around at the length of time it takes to sell out condos in this city. There are still (after at least a couple of years) vacant condo's in the 'new' condo building across skaha lake road (west side)is where new towers are planned. Ditto for the other condos on West side of skaha road. How many price reductions did those go thru before fianally selling. I suppose all that developer has to lose as some of their investment and maybe get some write off on any loss even it doesn't sound like good business.

The Verana condo's off Wilson (between Skaha and Wilson) took a very long time to sel also, with continuing turnover with units offered at a fraction of the original price .

Insofar as City Council, does it not have some responsibility for ensuring that a) the design of new development has a good fit with the surrounding community and b) the demographis and past experience show a reasonable chance that we don't end up with more for sale signs and vacant condos when considering approving a development?

Just look at design of buildings put up on NE corner of skaha and Yorkton. Is that a look that fits in with a location near a popular beach and park and readily drawn in people?
If we ask the right questions we can change the world with the right answers
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7964
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

Post by twobits »

Rosemary1 wrote:Funny how Council and attendees spent so much time debating 'affordable housing;. There is an accepted definition that not even our elected politician in all their wisdom seemed to know about

Affordable' housing is defined as costing less than 30% of before-tax household. income. This definition is a widely recognized standard used by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). That aside...

Private developers are not in the business of providing affordable housing as such. But since they are in the business of making a profit, I would think they may want to look around at the length of time it takes to sell out condos in this city. There are still (after at least a couple of years) vacant condo's in the 'new' condo building across skaha lake road (west side)is where new towers are planned. Ditto for the other condos on West side of skaha road. How many price reductions did those go thru before fianally selling. I suppose all that developer has to lose as some of their investment and maybe get some write off on any loss even it doesn't sound like good business.

The Verana condo's off Wilson (between Skaha and Wilson) took a very long time to sel also, with continuing turnover with units offered at a fraction of the original price .

Insofar as City Council, does it not have some responsibility for ensuring that a) the design of new development has a good fit with the surrounding community and b) the demographis and past experience show a reasonable chance that we don't end up with more for sale signs and vacant condos when considering approving a development?

Just look at design of buildings put up on NE corner of skaha and Yorkton. Is that a look that fits in with a location near a popular beach and park and readily drawn in people?


Yes grasshopper, 30% of gross income before taxes is the CMHC definition of affordable housing. But what does that mean? At what skill and wage level? One income or two? And what market? Spuzzum BC or the Okanagan?
It sounds as if you think City Hall should somehow intervene and provide this "30% of gross income" housing. Problem is city Hall has no control over the free market value of the real estate. They also impose a Development Cost charge against every unit built that pays for water and sewer upgrades these new units have created for the existing infrastructure. I suppose they could waive this but that would be viewed as a civic subsidy and the outcry would be massive from the other taxpayers paying the bills. You then have Provincial Building Code that demands certain standards that are not cheap.
These are the realities and barriers to your question of affordable housing. It is also why the most notable philanthropist organizations in the world can only scratch the surface. It is also why these groups are essentially invisible here in the Okanagan. 30% of gross income in the Okanagan does not stand a chance against the demand that people who want to come here are willing to pay and afford.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
Tony
Übergod
Posts: 1285
Joined: Aug 11th, 2005, 6:43 am

Re: Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

Post by Tony »

"Affordable housing" is typically supplied (if that's the best word) by a non profit organization, such as the Knights of Columbus and their projects being Christopher Housing on South Main, and a few years ago, taking over Abbott Towers. These are built by the NPO with the help of Government Grants and subsidies.

Never, in my opinion, should the Municipal Government supply low income housing. It's not their job, any more than it's their job to build a hotel.
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25224
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

Post by fluffy »

There is a concept called "inclusionary housing" whereby municipal governments offer incentives (or make it an outright requirement) for developers to make a set percentage of units in any new development meet the criteria of affordable housing.
Heal the sick, feed the hungry, care for the weakest among us, and always pray in private.
ToddT
Übergod
Posts: 1006
Joined: Dec 16th, 2010, 2:48 pm

Re: Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

Post by ToddT »

Don't worry if they keep building condos in Penticton they should all be fairly affordable soon enough.
XT225
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3306
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

Post by XT225 »

It really surprises me that Starline (a reputable builder) would start yet another condo tower(s) at this point in time, and in that area of town. The latest ones at Cherry Lane took a long time to sell (not sure that they are all sold even yet) in a prime location across from the Mall. The one big and rather expensive tower down the South end was a hard sell as well and there are condos just South of Skaha and Yorkton that were never finished; the builder wouldn't complete them til they had more commitments. Its good to be positive about building but we have also seen a fair number of properties rezoned in Penticton (some with controversial public hearings) that never ever got off the ground. (ie: Rigsby Street and the old Super Valu lot).

ETA: slightly off topic but still related, isn't it rather odd that Trio would get an agreement signed with the city BEFORE they get financing? Isn't that like signing a deal on a new car or house BEFORE going to the bank to see if you even qualify?
ToddT
Übergod
Posts: 1006
Joined: Dec 16th, 2010, 2:48 pm

Re: Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

Post by ToddT »

The waterslides have hockey dorms written all over it.

The condo thing - well across the street is Alysen Place. That was supposed to be three towers too.
User avatar
Rosemary1
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 984
Joined: Jan 24th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Re: Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

Post by Rosemary1 »

Nope, never implied that municipal governments should get in the business of providing 'affordable housing'. The CMHC 30% is just based on gross income of family as I understand it . Nothing to do with skills or anything else.
If we ask the right questions we can change the world with the right answers
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 36344
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

Post by Glacier »

twobits wrote:Yes grasshopper, 30% of gross income before taxes is the CMHC definition of affordable housing. But what does that mean? At what skill and wage level? One income or two? And what market? Spuzzum BC or the Okanagan?

Furthermore, does this 30% still count if you have 5 kids? What if you're self-employed? Does it apply if you walk to work and don't own a vehicle? What if you own 3 vehicles?

The government should not be in the affordable housing business other than to give tax incentives to increase supply of apartments and other such low cost housing options.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25224
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

Post by fluffy »

So it's a sort of sliding scale then. Without some income parameters the percentage figure is relatively meaningless when it comes to providing housing for low income families.
Heal the sick, feed the hungry, care for the weakest among us, and always pray in private.
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7964
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Towers approved for Skaha Lake Road

Post by twobits »

fluffy wrote:So it's a sort of sliding scale then. Without some income parameters the percentage figure is relatively meaningless when it comes to providing housing for low income families.


The figure is absolutely meaningless. The definition using 30% of gross income as being the yardstick is also miss used. Most people erroneously use the 30% of gross income figure as a measure of home ownership. CMHC is quite clear that this definition applies to all housing including rental and emergency shelter. It is most definitely not a suggestion that residence ownership should be a mandatory right in every real estate market in the country.
Yet what we hear is the story from unskilled workers making 33k/yr pointing to the CMHC definition and saying the Civic, or Provincial, or Federal Govt's should providing a way where I can buy a residence for a cost of 11k a year.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.

Return to “North Okanagan”