Vancouver to tax empty homes 'with or without' province's support

[nuckin_futz]

 

Published Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:20AM PDT
Last Updated Wednesday, June 22, 2016 1:44PM PDT

 

The City of Vancouver has announced plans to tax vacant homes “with or without” support from the B.C. government.

 

With the rental vacancy rate at an all-time low of 0.6 per cent, Mayor Gregor Robertson said action needs to be taken to pressure spectators into opening up their homes to renters.

 

“Rental housing is almost impossible to find in Vancouver right now,” Robertson said at a press conference Wednesday in Coal Harbour, where a 2013 study found an estimated 22 per cent of homes were unoccupied.

 

“We know that during this affordability crunch there are over 10,000 empty homes year-round in the City of Vancouver. Those empty homes would add a badly needed supply to our rental housing stock.”

 

Robertson urged Premier Christy Clark to implement an empty home tax last year, but said the city has found a workaround to tax homes without the province’s support.

 

“The city will take action on taxing empty homes with or without the help of the B.C. government,” he said.

 

A provincial tax is still the best option, he added. Vancouver is once again asking B.C. to introduce a “residential vacant” property class that would allow the government to tax empty properties using data already collected by the province.

 

But if the city has to go it alone, Robertson said it can still establish a new business tax on empty homes being held as investment properties.

Robertson said if the province refuses, Vancouver will implement its own tax by August.

 

"If a home is basically being held as a business, as an investment, and it's empty 12 months a year, that's certainly where we want to intervene and take action," Robertson said.

 

“Housing is first and foremost about homes, it’s not just a commodity to make money with.”

 

It's not yet clear what the rate for taxing empty homes will be, but Robertson says it has to be significant enough to encourage change of use.

 

City staff say that if 20 per cent of empty home could be converted into rental, that would bring the vacancy rate to a “healthy” three per cent.  

 

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-to-tax-empty-homes-with-or-without-province-s-support-1.2956913

 

[AriGold]

This better not be a super low tax.

 

It should be high enough that the home owner considers selling or renting. 

 

Not something laughable that the home owner says "Phh, heres my $5000, now buzz off"

[Jägermeister]

 

 

[LuckyLuciano]

5 minutes ago, AriGold said:

This better not be a super low tax.

 

It should be high enough that the home owner considers selling or renting. 

 

Not something laughable that the home owner says "Phh, heres my $5000, now buzz off"

Take my 50,000,000 and gtfo 

[luckylager]

4 minutes ago, AriGold said:

This better not be a super low tax.

 

It should be high enough that the home owner considers selling or renting. 

 

Not something laughable that the home owner says "Phh, heres my $5000, now buzz off"

Exactly.

If you're sitting on an empty house in Vancouver, my guess is : Congratulations, you're filthy rich!

 

Penalties would have to excessive, like unfair excessive. Which I'm all for

[Kakanucks]

About goddamn time someone did something about it.

 

Now just counting down the time when that Beeetch CC will GTFO.

[nuckin_futz]

6 minutes ago, AriGold said:

This better not be a super low tax.

 

It should be high enough that the home owner considers selling or renting. 

 

Not something laughable that the home owner says "Phh, heres my $5000, now buzz off"

 

18 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

 

It's not yet clear what the rate for taxing empty homes will be, but Robertson says it has to be significant enough to encourage change of use.

 

City staff say that if 20 per cent of empty home could be converted into rental, that would bring the vacancy rate to a “healthy” three per cent. 

 

I would think they'd set it at a rate they think would accomplish the goal and if not adjust it higher.

[John Tortorella]

Still not enough. Only canadians can buy land in BC is only answer

[elvis15]

The only caveat I'd want to look at (which hopefully wouldn't be a way to abuse the tax and exempt yourself out) is for someone to buy a house and renovate it to be able to resell it. They wouldn't be able to rent it in that case and they're trying to better the property for resale rather than just letting the value increase solely on the back of the market. Homes that are used a fair portion of the year as vacation (or return from vacation) homes should also be considered as either exempt or at a lower penalty rate (and no, offering the property as an airBnB occasionally doesn't count).

 

Not that I do that, but those kinds of situations would be unfairly penalized when the intent is to tax homes that have no improvements being made to prevent someone from living there yet they're still vacant. Find the latter and stick it to them. 

[Realtor Rod]

Opportunistic cash grab. Does nothing for anyone, no matter the amount. It's not a fix of any kind. 

[Realtor Rod]

23 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

The only caveat I'd want to look at (which hopefully wouldn't be a way to abuse the tax and exempt yourself out) is for someone to buy a house and renovate it to be able to resell it. They wouldn't be able to rent it in that case and they're trying to better the property for resale rather than just letting the value increase solely on the back of the market. Homes that are used a fair portion of the year as vacation (or return from vacation) homes should also be considered as either exempt or at a lower penalty rate (and no, offering the property as an airBnB occasionally doesn't count).

 

Not that I do that, but those kinds of situations would be unfairly penalized when the intent is to tax homes that have no improvements being made to prevent someone from living there yet they're still vacant. Find the latter and stick it to them. 

In this market, the fix and flips are nearly nil.

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, nuckin_futz said:

 

Published Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:20AM PDT
Last Updated Wednesday, June 22, 2016 1:44PM PDT

 

The City of Vancouver has announced plans to tax vacant homes “with or without” support from the B.C. government.

 

With the rental vacancy rate at an all-time low of 0.6 per cent, Mayor Gregor Robertson said action needs to be taken to pressure spectators into opening up their homes to renters.

 

“Rental housing is almost impossible to find in Vancouver right now,” Robertson said at a press conference Wednesday in Coal Harbour, where a 2013 study found an estimated 22 per cent of homes were unoccupied.

 

“We know that during this affordability crunch there are over 10,000 empty homes year-round in the City of Vancouver. Those empty homes would add a badly needed supply to our rental housing stock.”

 

Robertson urged Premier Christy Clark to implement an empty home tax last year, but said the city has found a workaround to tax homes without the province’s support.

 

“The city will take action on taxing empty homes with or without the help of the B.C. government,” he said.

 

A provincial tax is still the best option, he added. Vancouver is once again asking B.C. to introduce a “residential vacant” property class that would allow the government to tax empty properties using data already collected by the province.

 

But if the city has to go it alone, Robertson said it can still establish a new business tax on empty homes being held as investment properties.

Robertson said if the province refuses, Vancouver will implement its own tax by August.

 

"If a home is basically being held as a business, as an investment, and it's empty 12 months a year, that's certainly where we want to intervene and take action," Robertson said.

 

“Housing is first and foremost about homes, it’s not just a commodity to make money with.”

 

It's not yet clear what the rate for taxing empty homes will be, but Robertson says it has to be significant enough to encourage change of use.

 

City staff say that if 20 per cent of empty home could be converted into rental, that would bring the vacancy rate to a “healthy” three per cent.  

 

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-to-tax-empty-homes-with-or-without-province-s-support-1.2956913

 

Is it legal to tax someone extra when their house is vacant?  It's their house, isn't it?  Plus, if these people are this wealthy, maybe they just pay the tax, like it's pocket change?  

How does this tax increase rentals?  

[aGENT]

27 minutes ago, Realtor Rod said:

Opportunistic cash grab. Does nothing for anyone, no matter the amount. It's not a fix of any kind. 

What if the city uses those funds to build low income housing?

[Nooks]

1 hour ago, AriGold said:

This better not be a super low tax.

 

It should be high enough that the home owner considers selling or renting. 

 

Not something laughable that the home owner says "Phh, heres my $5000, now buzz off"

Peg it to a percentage of the homes value and have it escalate the longer it sits vacant.



OFC all the realtor's are going to hate this

[Dion Phaneuf]

Being in the industry as a developer (and builder)... the tax will most likely not have much of an impact on "hoarding" investment properties throughout Vancouver.  What this tax will do if implemented correctly is reduce small-time developers/investors that can only afford one or two additional properties.  

 

I'd like to see the entire Lower Mainland implement a tax on empty properties, homes should be rented.   Most homeowners, foreign and local don't want to deal with the headache of "problem renters" thus empty properties.  Personally, my company tries to screen renters but it's difficult to find someone to rent a dumpy rancher 

[elvis15]

49 minutes ago, Realtor Rod said:

In this market, the fix and flips are nearly nil.

I don't disagree, but this market can't be sustainable so it'll end up normalizing at some point. The new vacancy tax should be ready to account for that.

 

22 minutes ago, J.R. said:

What if the city uses those funds to build low income housing?

Shhhh, don't think with logic while you're on CDC! (not that they would be that smart to use it to help solve the problem vs putting it into general revenue)

 

17 minutes ago, Nooks said:

Peg it to a percentage of the homes value and have it escalate the longer it sits vacant.



OFC all the realtor's are going to hate this

Honestly, of the realtors I know, as much as they're enjoying the commissions they know this is a bad thing for the market and for real people looking to buy. But I don't mind the escalator idea.

[Realtor Rod]

2 hours ago, Nooks said:

Peg it to a percentage of the homes value and have it escalate the longer it sits vacant.



OFC all the realtor's are going to hate this

It doesn't bother me at all. In fact, if it bothers clients of mine (which it wont) they will sell as the market is very good for sellers right now.

 

Someone mentioned building low income housing. Any idea what parcel of land they would do that on? If it is not city owned already and they have to buy it, you can remove the idea of low income immediately. 

 

This is a cash grab, plain and simple. Although, the gvrd does own a large parcel out the Abbotsford way that they could easily build low income housing on, and could have for decades, but they won't. 

[Lockout Casualty]

29 minutes ago, Realtor Rod said:

It doesn't bother me at all. In fact, if it bothers clients of mine (which it wont) they will sell as the market is very good for sellers right now.

 

Someone mentioned building low income housing. Any idea what parcel of land they would do that on? If it is not city owned already and they have to buy it, you can remove the idea of low income immediately. 

 

This is a cash grab, plain and simple. Although, the gvrd does own a large parcel out the Abbotsford way that they could easily build low income housing on, and could have for decades, but they won't. 

What, exactly, is wrong with it being a cash grab? Let's think about this for a moment. If nothing changes, the government just got a bunch of free money from people who can clearly afford it. No harm, no foul. If it pushes some people into changing their practice, we get more available housing. If some owners can't afford the extra tax, the houses will be sold to those who either can afford the tax (thereby feeding government coffers) or those who will utilize the dwelling for its actual purpose - living in it, or renting it out to someone else who will (thereby increasing housing availability). Everybody wins. Well, except the foreign investors, but they're the last on my list of people I worry about. YMMV.

 

It may not be a fix-all move, but it has other tangible benefits for the residents of this city. So... do tell, what is the problem?

[Warhippy]

Unless or until he cracks down on Air BnB suites as well it's a half measure at best

[Ghostsof1915]

Better be a percentage of the houses value or it won't deter anyone.