Wilbur Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I agree. I was just trying to relate this topic to Surrey because I got off track. I agree with that as well. Gregor is hyper pro-developer. The developers will continue to build as long as they can sell out the buildings to foreign owners. It wouldn't be that hard turn this into extra revenue by taxing non-resident owners a token amount. I doubt it would even slow the pace of development. Christy is on glue on this...in my opinion. All the municipalities are hyper-pro-developement in the Lower Mainland/Fraser Valley it seems. They did well in Langley. Used the spectre of jacked up property taxes and no parking in residential areas to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realtor Rod Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You can still come out to Abbotsford for a good deal, but we see it here as well. Homes purchased and renters go in immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckster19 Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Bloating your home equity for you, Christy Credits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliesStache14 Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You can still come out to Abbotsford for a good deal, but we see it here as well. Homes purchased and renters go in immediately. well considering a house out there that will cost you $800,000 will cost 3 times that in an area like Point Grey or Shaughnessy i'm surprised more people aren't doing this out there lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianLoonie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 well considering a house out there that will cost you $800,000 will cost 3 times that in an area like Point Grey or Shaughnessy i'm surprised more people aren't doing this out there lol Just expand the borders of "Vancouver" eastwards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Australia has put in measures like this in place. So why can't we? Remember this when you vote folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 lol Surrey is as pro developer as anyone, don't kid yourself. I'd say even more so. It's just that they can develop fields rather than existing houses so it gets less noise. Of course the issue of foreign ownership and things that can be done lies at the feet of the federal government or provincial, but not municipal to any significant degree. It is for sure. I was specifically referring to lots owned by developers who are waiting to develop them. I was really trying to bring my off topic posts back into topic. This article is partly what I was talking about. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/surrey-neighbourhood-ruined-by-abandoned-homes-residents-say-1.2976946 The municipality can create bylaws to make it less comfortable for developers, but at this point it's highly doubtful they would. All the municipalities are hyper-pro-developement in the Lower Mainland/Fraser Valley it seems. They did well in Langley. Used the spectre of jacked up property taxes and no parking in residential areas to win. I was surprised last time I drove down 200th to Langley City. They sure densely populated that whole corridor with row homes. They're not cheap either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianLoonie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Australia has put in measures like this in place. So why can't we? Remember this when you vote folks. Because they can be easily side-stepped... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Because they can be easily side-stepped... This is true though. Like the financial transaction tax that people always talk about but can never achieve the desired results because people can just make lots of transactions in small amounts, nothing is stopping foreign investors from establishing a local corporation first and buy through that entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianLoonie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 This is true though. Like the financial transaction tax that people always talk about but can never achieve the desired results because people can just make lots of transactions in small amounts, nothing is stopping foreign investors from establishing a local corporation first and buy through that entity. Err... what financial transaction tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianLoonie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 The increase in prices sure as hell correlates with the total increase in household debt over the period! (Or debt to income, or whatever metric you want to use). Speaking of correlations... Since interest rates went nowhere in 4 years the chart is still current... Axis on the left denotes million of millions of dollars...aka the top represents 2 trillion dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King_Canuckian Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I can understand where Clark is coming from. Restricting ownership puts her in a terrible light for foreign investors. It also alienates her from a very large voting bloc on the coast, Victoria and the Okanagan that would stand to lose a alrge portion of their investment/equity in a resulting price decline. That's funny, I thought Christy Clark was responsible to the people of BC, and not foreign investors. Yes, housing prices will drop. Wouldn't that be wonderful for kids just finishing post-secondary? ...at least the ones who stay here, and not take their skills somewhere they can afford to live. And besides, why should she worry about alienating voters? It's not like our voter turnout is through the roof or anything. Further, it's not like such a tax will stop investors either, but it could... hmmmmm... I don't know... fund projects like extended skytrain lines and new bridges, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 $450 k for a rancher is perfectly acceptable. And unfortunately, if you have a combined family income of $72,000 you should not be buying a rancher as a first home. You should be looking at a townhouse and then saving up equity until you have about $150,000+ and then upgrading. It's a serious problem if people with low incomes are buying property with no sizeable down payments (see the sub-prime mortgage crisis). With current rates, a $300,000 mortgage should work out to about $1400-1500/month. That's totally doable even with extra expenses on top. Also, those stats on average income are always skewed down, as they are based on reported taxes. Not all income is reported on income tax returns. The issue is in places like Vancouver where the price of a decaying eastside home has skyrocketed from 800-900 up to 1.5 million. Good points. I wonder what the income tax would be from all that income. Somehow, I can't see it be a very substantial sum. Sure, you got drug dealers, convenient stores and small businesses, and waiters, but I doubt they combined make up 5% of the population (maybe waiters actually make up a bigger slice in this service economy). Again, I've never actually looked into this, so this is pure guessing. Didn't really occur to me the whole grow equity thing. He's alright, his dad put down 90k on his downpayment. So he went from a 1BR renting to a house in one move. Can't really consider 72k low income though, I don't think. It's not lavish, but it's certainly middle class, and one would think a rancher should be right up this alley. I don't know anything about mortgages, so... I should probably shut up. I own, and I'm fed up with it all. Money isn't everything (see my previous post)...quality of life matters too. And in Richmond, that's deteriorating as fast as house prices are rising. Plus, so I sell my place then what? I have to move away because nothing will be available within my budget as there no longer are "family" homes...there are mansions and villas. They're knocking down perfectly good houses to stick these monstrosities up. I don't want to live in a castle, thanks...I like ranchers. They have gone the way of the dinosaur here. Never thought about the fact that every house that goes up is huge. You're absolutely right, nobody's building ranchers anymore. No wonder prices are so stupid, people have houses 3x larger than they need. People raise families in apartments in most of the world, for crying out loud. In my last job I worked on some monster houses, I had to say no to a job after having guys there for four hours because we simply couldn't do anything to work around the design and size. And the quality is crap. New houses five years old with cracked, slanted stairs? Check. Gutters rotting off? Check. Shoddy plumbing? Check. Quality? Ain't nobody got time for dat. Are foreign-owned properties exempt from property taxes? And if they are unoccupied yet still have to pay property taxes...that's like buying a gym membership but not actually going to the gym and using it? Hey, it's Clonney the Clown! Are you going to tell us a story about how government is bad and we're all slaves? I love that one Clooney! Oh crap, there are two more pages, maybe you already have! No, it's not like a gym membership you funny guy, you. A gym depends on you not going, a city depends on that house being occupied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 People with Mortgages are happy. No one here is a homeowner? I own a home and I sure don't have the equity to lose if the market drops. I'd have a house worth less than I paid for/am paying for. All us home owners would lose out. She is in a no win situation here - piss off homeowners or piss off those hoping to get in. So we should do what's better in the long run, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianLoonie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Hey, it's Clonney the Clown! Are you going to tell us a story about how government is bad and we're all slaves? I love that one Clooney! Oh crap, there are two more pages, maybe you already have! No, it's not like a gym membership you funny guy, you. A gym depends on you not going, a city depends on that house being occupied. So if a house is left un-occupied, the property taxes due are exempt from being paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 So if a house is left un-occupied, the property taxes due are exempt from being paid? Is the property available to be used by someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianLoonie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Is the property available to be used by someone else? That should be up to the discretion of the property owner...do you believe in private property rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 That should be up to the discretion of the property owner...do you believe in private property rights? So who will frequent the coffee shop, and the grocery store, and the bank, and the, and the, and the? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianLoonie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 So who will frequent the coffee shop, and the grocery store, and the bank, and the, and the, and the? That is not the problem of individual property owners. Do you believe in private property rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 That is not the problem of individual property owners. Do you believe in private property rights? What do property rights have to do with taxes? Property owners have the right to pay taxes. Homer pays homer tax. Foreigners pay foreigner tax. Seriously, that's so complicated here? Nobody has the right to buy a house in Vancouver, it's not water. Everyone can buy a house in Vancouver, but Vancouver needs people to live in it to function well. Empty homes do nothing positive for the community, so I don't see why the community should allow them. And yes, they should pay more tax because residents would pay sales taxes, income taxes, et el. Your opinion only serves the property owner, and I could give a rat's ass about the one living in China and parking his cash here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.