Rent communists!

[fluffy]

Government used to give out interest free loans to developers to build social housing- Government also owns 95% of our land- so yeah there's many things that they could do to go back to the days when social housing and co op housing was a good investment for the citizens of this country

and why some people seem to think that government social housing is free is beyond me ? it's not free, the tenants pay rent but the rent won't be 50+ % of their income meaning they can spend more of their own income providing for their life needs and in our economy instead of paying it to RE Investors private or Corporate- how on earth could this be a bad thing ?

Those on the right have significant difficulty thinking in degrees, everything has to be black or white, yes or no.
There are ways to deal with the housing crisis that don't amount to "communism", that's just window dressing for free market supporters even though it's plain that an unregulated free market serves only itself. The rate of home ownership among Canadians has dropped close to four percent in the last five years and this trend will continue without some effort to adjust the economy. We could talk about the ethical aspects of making a basic necessity like housing a vehicle for wealth production, but that too seems to be a concept beyond the grasp of many. Simply put, rank and file Canadians are being locked out of the housing market in increasing numbers becasue wages have not kept pace with the cost of living, especially the cost of housing. Some steps to reduce the attractiveness of investing in housing as a means of wealth production would certainly seem to be in order.

[normaM]

even when you purchase a house BC assessment only shows sales in the past 3 years
We bought a place for double what the Owners had paid 2 years prior, they would have laughed in our faces had we offered say 10,000 over their cost

In the early to mid-1990s, back-to-back governments of different political stripes — first the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney and then Jean Chretien's Liberals — began pulling back from the business of affordable housing. So even back then Govts didn't really give a fig about housing for all

I think it is unfair to now put all the responsibility and liability on the landlords to offer " affordable housing"
Tax places of worship, use that windfall to build income based housing .

[fluffy]

In the early to mid-1990s, back-to-back governments of different political stripes — first the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney and then Jean Chretien's Liberals — began pulling back from the business of affordable housing. So even back then Govts didn't really give a fig about housing for all

And that's when prices really started climbing. "Social" housing disappeared and the private sector profit margin entered the picture. The financialization of housing was under way. As soon as individual investors saw money to be made with as little an investment as a down-payment it gets even worse. Now with price of everything climbing, even the cost of ownership, investors see it as their "right" to cover their expenses plus a margin of profit. So who gets left in the lurch ? Add to the mix that for every existing dwelling converted from owner-occupied to a rental property there is one less opportunity for new owners. This is where the ethical aspects become an issue. If I'm just looking for a place to live do I have to subsidize someone else's income find one ? And to what degree should I do that ? Say an investor landlord has held the property long enough to pay it off, and falls back on "market rates" to justify returns that only intensify the issue.

I think it is unfair to now put all the responsibility and liability on the landlords to offer " affordable housing"

Government needs to get back into social housing, either through direct investment of through incentives for the private sector to build purpose-built rentals. Increase the competition in the rental market and make it less attractive for new investors to enter the market, and force existing investors to keep their rents competitive or sell out. We're at the point where the "free market" is benefiting only people who have extra money to begin with, and needs some adjustment to level the playing field.

[GordonH]

There are numerous non-profit organizations around Kelowna, everything from Knights of Columbus to Society of Hope to a couple of large churches (Evangel & Trinity).

Prices are based on one’s income.

[seewood]

Those on the right have significant difficulty thinking in degrees, everything has to be black or white, yes or no.

I don't think that's the case at all. Those on the right, myself included, think fiscal responsibility as they know what happens when you spend beyond your means, personally and government. The Canadian dollar is in the tank because of the Trudeau's spending, making imports like food more expensive.

There are ways to deal with the housing crisis that don't amount to "communism", that's just window dressing for free market supporters even though it's plain that an unregulated free market serves only itself.

So more regulations are going to have the private sector create more rental housing stock ?? Don't believe that's how it works. More regulations usually have the private sector move on to other ventures.

We could talk about the ethical aspects of making a basic necessity like housing a vehicle for wealth production, but that too seems to be a concept beyond the grasp of many.

Nothing wrong in purchasing a house to live in and watch it appreciate over time. That is usually what happens.
Some prepared to deal with renters will purchase a second home and long term rent it for future retirement income. Nothing wrong with that as they might not have employment pensions to live off.
Ones that purchase a house after a bidding war, heavily leveraged perhaps, and immediately put it out there for vacation rentals, I have no tolerance for that.

imply put, rank and file Canadians are being locked out of the housing market in increasing numbers becasue wages have not kept pace with the cost of living, especially the cost of housing.

Here we go again, if you cannot afford to live in a jurisdiction because your wages are not sufficient, time to move or increase your wages. People have been doing it for hundreds of years. Lots from BC moving out of province to Alberta or Saskatchewan.

Some steps to reduce the attractiveness of investing in housing as a means of wealth production would certainly seem to be in order.

So the province builds housing and rents it out? With what ?, governments are broke.

100 mile house, 1/3 the price of an equivilant in Kelowna: https://www.royallepage.ca/en/property/ ... sr2860651/

[fluffy]

Prices are based on one’s income.

Only to the point where the market is based on what the seller figures they can squeeze out of you. The rule of thumb is that housing expenses, mortgage/rent, utilities and insurance should amount to roughly one third of household income. That threshold is no longer attainable for many.

[rustled]

In the early to mid-1990s, back-to-back governments of different political stripes — first the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney and then Jean Chretien's Liberals — began pulling back from the business of affordable housing. So even back then Govts didn't really give a fig about housing for all

And that's when prices really started climbing. "Social" housing disappeared and the private sector profit margin entered the picture. The financialization of housing was under way. As soon as individual investors saw money to be made with as little an investment as a down-payment it gets even worse. Now with price of everything climbing, even the cost of ownership, investors see it as their "right" to cover their expenses plus a margin of profit.

The roots of government impacts on housing go back further than the 1990s, as discussed in previous threads.

The phrase "the financialization of housing" is the language of Marxists.

Of course investors expect a profit!

• Without profit, investors have no reason to invest.
• With no investment, we have no supply.
• With no supply, socialists have an excuse to insist governments must provide housing.
• With governments providing housing we grow socialism.

When well-paid people like Jack Layton and Olivia Chow live in social housing, we see the obvious problem in this scheme.

Sooner or later the increasingly socialist government runs out of everybody else's money. This is NOT a solution - it is a way to grow the problem bigger to achieve the goals of socialists, at the expense of all of us.

[GordonH]

Prices are based on one’s income.

Only to the point where the market is based on what the seller figures they can squeeze out of you. The rule of thumb is that housing expenses, mortgage/rent, utilities and insurance should amount to roughly one third of household income. That threshold is no longer attainable for many.

I was talking about nonprofit organizations. Not for profit housing

[rustled]

There are numerous non-profit organizations around Kelowna, everything from Knights of Columbus to Society of Hope to a couple of large churches (Evangel & Trinity).

Prices are based on one’s income.

We have those in Penticton as well. And the governments should get out of the way of these non-profit organizations, too!

[fluffy]

I was talking about nonprofit organizations. Not for profit housing

Property prices and cost of construction have pushed most non-profits out of the picture. Some government help could reverse that trend.

[rustled]

I was talking about nonprofit organizations. Not for profit housing

Property prices and cost of construction have pushed most non-profits out of the picture. Some government help could reverse that trend.

It's socialist "thinking" to suggest the government should "help" when the government has been making construction more expensive for everyone and should simply be getting out of the way.

[seewood]

Sooner or later the increasingly socialist government runs out of everybody else's money. This is NOT a solution - it is a way to grow the problem bigger to achieve the goals of socialists, at the expense of all of us.

Freeking perfect However it seems they have an entire ministry to dream up more taxe schemes. The NDP and federal liberals are going to sleep at night wondering where the next billion is coming from.

[normaM]

Social housing like the Projects in the US doesn't paint a pretty picture
If the Govt were to get back in the game, yet build SH where the land is cheap do you reckon people would move Fluffy?

[liisgo]

In the early to mid-1990s, back-to-back governments of different political stripes — first the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney and then Jean Chretien's Liberals — began pulling back from the business of affordable housing. So even back then Govts didn't really give a fig about housing for all

And that's when prices really started climbing. "Social" housing disappeared and the private sector profit margin entered the picture. The financialization of housing was under way. As soon as individual investors saw money to be made with as little an investment as a down-payment it gets even worse. Now with price of everything climbing, even the cost of ownership, investors see it as their "right" to cover their expenses plus a margin of profit. So who gets left in the lurch ? Add to the mix that for every existing dwelling converted from owner-occupied to a rental property there is one less opportunity for new owners. This is where the ethical aspects become an issue. If I'm just looking for a place to live do I have to subsidize someone else's income find one ? And to what degree should I do that ? Say an investor landlord has held the property long enough to pay it off, and falls back on "market rates" to justify returns that only intensify the issue.

I think it is unfair to now put all the responsibility and liability on the landlords to offer " affordable housing"

Government needs to get back into social housing, either through direct investment of through incentives for the private sector to build purpose-built rentals. Increase the competition in the rental market and make it less attractive for new investors to enter the market, and force existing investors to keep their rents competitive or sell out. We're at the point where the "free market" is benefiting only people who have extra money to begin with, and needs some adjustment to level the playing field.

Why dont you at least provide sum numbers that satisfy, in terms of acceptable investment growth that should realize to those that purchase a home? Would you be willing to sign into your contract of purchase a 0% capital increase on your home, just to be fair to the next purchasure?
Those people that work to build houses, should they all lower their wages to accomadate others purchase prices?
Selling out has taken place very recently by an increased amount due to the obvious government invovlement and increased taxes, interest rates, fee's, capped rent increases making investment a poor decision. All that happened is good tenants were sent packing, new foriegn ownership replaced it and rents went up 12% instead of their stupid 2%cap.
Millions of people over the years did adjust the playing field by saving money, working longer hrs, seeking better opportunity, taking a chance and good on them.
Be specific as the group that you believe have zero options to contribute to.
Also, recent post you stated a narrative that many investors are buying right now because of being able to take advantage of the great investment.
We asked for you to provide an example using real life numbers to prove your narrative.
Prove it.
$450000 2 bedroom condo in rutland with a $400000 mortgage.
Be my guest, show us the math of a successful investment, or be more specific as per your claims.

[George Orwell 1984]

Nothing builds a sense of community more than social housing . Your government working hard for the middle class and those that wish to join it. The socialist dream . It gives the commies the warm fuzzies ……right?

IMG_1193.png