Castanet article on housing

[gertlush]

Seems to me the best first step to combat homelessness is to make it easy for developers to build homes (cheaper and less red tape, low housing tax). And not condo buildings that get sold offshore or to the upper crust. I mean apartments. Buildings with 2-10 units in them. A market saturated with apartments will be a market with a lower rent rate in general. At least this would help the capable tier of the homeless. Those who are homeless but could pull themselves out of it if market rent wasn't $1675 but $625. This seems an achievable goal. We could accomplish this within 5 years.

There is no financial incentive for the private sector to build affordable housing. They'll just build at a higher price point and make more profit. This is not an issue the private sector can solve.

Yes, I certainly wouldn't want to be in the business of landlording a bunch of ex-homeless people.

Not sure how gov could fix it either.

I guess its sort of 2 issues - affordability for the working stiffs and housing for those who can't afford it.

[fluffy]

Developing is not easy or cheap. There is no incentive to build for that price point when they can build for a higher profit margin price point. For essentially the same cost. Why would they? It costs the same to build "affordable" and mid range for the most part. This is not a problem the private sector can solve.

I agree. To make housing affordable you need to take profit out of the loop completely, and that means working around the money that usually goes to developers or investor landlords. The people that have been successful at bringing affordable housing onto the market have been non-profit organizations. Housing co-ops, service clubs, even church groups who operate without the need for a profit margin. And they build dedicated rental properties, no opportunity there to flip for profit. This has been going on quietly behind the scenes for years now, with some government support in the form of tax breaks or cheap, municipal owned land they could be doing even better.

[0g0p0g0]

Developing is not easy or cheap. There is no incentive to build for that price point when they can build for a higher profit margin price point. For essentially the same cost. Why would they? It costs the same to build "affordable" and mid range for the most part. This is not a problem the private sector can solve.

I agree. You need to take the developer out of the loop completely. The people that have been successful at bringing affordable housing onto the market have been non-profit organizations. Housing co-ops, service clubs, even church groups who operate without the need for a profit margin. And they build dedicated rental properties, no opportunity there to flip for profit. This has been going on quietly behind the scenes for years now, with some government support in the form of tax breaks or cheap, municipal owned land they could be doing even better.

This world you keep think is coming doesn't now nor will ever exist. Their is no communal property. Its never worked as 1000 you's show up for every 1 that wants to work. Its pretty obvious math. No way around capitalism if you want any freedom or standard of living. Its not up to others to take care of you.

[fluffy]

This world you keep think is coming doesn't now nor will ever exist.

It's already here.

There are 112 housing co-ops in Vancouver. Half of these, representing 63 per cent of co-op households, are situated on leased city land, making city councillors the landlord to 4,011 households.
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/ ... -vancouver

As housing costs continue to rise the need for more projects like this will gain further support form government at all levels.
As it should. How much money you have in the bank is a poor yardstick for citizenship.

[BC Landlord]

This world you keep think is coming doesn't now nor will ever exist.

It's already here.

There are 112 housing co-ops in Vancouver. Half of these, representing 63 per cent of co-op households, are situated on leased city land, making city councillors the landlord to 4,011 households.
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/ ... -vancouver

As housing costs continue to rise the need for more projects like this will gain further support form government at all levels.
As it should. How much money you have in the bank is a poor yardstick for citizenship.

Nowhere in the article it says what the role of the government would be in this setting. But one thing is for sure, ... Any housing directly or indirectly owned and/or operated by governments inevitably turn into slums. The best thing government could do is to get the heck out of the way.

[JLives]

It's already here.

There are 112 housing co-ops in Vancouver. Half of these, representing 63 per cent of co-op households, are situated on leased city land, making city councillors the landlord to 4,011 households.
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/ ... -vancouver

As housing costs continue to rise the need for more projects like this will gain further support form government at all levels.
As it should. How much money you have in the bank is a poor yardstick for citizenship.

Nowhere in the article it says what the role of the government would be in this setting. But one thing is for sure, ... Any housing directly or indirectly owned and/or operated by governments inevitably turn into slums. The best thing government could do is to get the heck out of the way.

Well that's not true. I have family on the coast living in subsidized housing and they are very nice, well kept properties. Now the privately owned houses here on Hein and Nickle Rd. on the other hand are abysmal. And wait, don't you have a problem abandoned house that the government is threatening to tear down and bill you for because of how many complaints they get about it?

[BC Landlord]

Well that's not true. I have family on the coast living in subsidized housing and they are very nice, well kept properties.

And I've seen a lot of social housing places. None of them looked like something where you would want to raise you kids.

And wait, don't you have a problem abandoned house that the government is threatening to tear down and bill you for because of how many complaints they get about it?

No, I don't.

[fluffy]

Nowhere in the article it says what the role of the government would be in this setting. But one thing is for sure, ... Any housing directly or indirectly owned and/or operated by governments inevitably turn into slums. The best thing government could do is to get the heck out of the way.

The article says "Half of these, representing 63 per cent of co-op households, are situated on leased city land..."

I challenge you to back up your claim that "Any housing directly or indirectly owned and/or operated by governments inevitably turn into slums." I'd wager that the real situation is closer to what JLives describes, that the lion's share of slummy rentals are owned by investor landlords who care more about money than decent housing.

[BC Landlord]

I challenge you to back up your claim that "Any housing directly or indirectly owned and/or operated by governments inevitably turn into slums." I'd wager that the real situation is closer to what JLives describes, that the lion's share of slummy rentals are owned by investor landlords who care more about money than decent housing.

They all look nice new. A few years down the road they all become neglected, and eventually dilapidated, attracting all sorts of not-so-nice people. I had lived around them for many years before coming to Canada. And it's no different anywhere in the world. Governments don't know how to run businesses, nor have they any sense of ownership. No ownership, .. no care. Simple as that.

[fluffy]

Any examples around here you can actually point to ?

[rustled]

Any examples around here you can actually point to ?

I'd prefer to see examples showing how government-provided, government-managed housing in BC has worked well over the long term. TIA.

[BC Landlord]

Any examples around here you can actually point to ?

To explain or prove you that no ownership means no care is like asking me to explain you why today is Thursday. I just can't. It's the way it is.

[Patron]

Any examples around here you can actually point to ?

To explain or prove you that no ownership means no care is like asking me to explain you why today is Thursday. I just can't. It's the way it is.

so you mean the exact same thing that happens with private LL's renting their investments, you would be naive if you think all private LL's take great care with their rentals.

[fluffy]

To explain or prove you that no ownership means no care is like asking me to explain you why today is Thursday. I just can't. It's the way it is.

Co-op housing does involve ownership, it would be comparable to a self run strata, but without the entry costs. There is no need to turn a profit so that's money that stays in the owners' pockets. The rental projects I have viewed online in this area are well kept, attractive complexes. The slum aspect you describe doesn't appear to be an issue in our area as far as non-profit operations go. The no-ownership/no care tenants you talk about would have a tough time getting into the projects I've viewed as it look like the screening of applicants is fairly thorough. Where these people end up is usually in accommodations that are sub-standard to begin with, run by proverbial "slumlords" who seek only to maximize returns.

[fluffy]

...you would be naive if you think all private LL's take great care with their rentals.