Crabcakes Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 I like Weaver but he's really showing his limitations with this reckless suggestion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said: Shouldn't Chretien be blamed as well considering he signed nafta into law? Was already a done deal by that stage, Chretien wanted it renegotiate parts of the deal but it was already getting ratified by US Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Was already a done deal by that stage, Chretien wanted it renegotiate parts of the deal but it was already getting ratified by US Congress. Actually Chretien campaigned on scrapping nafta and then once elected signed it into law. Even today he still praises nafta makes you wonder why he campaigned against it. My point is it's pretty silly to only blame conservatives. Btw Canada is a sovereign nation we could cancel nafta at anytime no matter what the us congress is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 10 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Actually Chretien campaigned on scrapping nafta and then once elected signed it into law. Even today he still praises nafta makes you wonder why he campaigned against it. My point is it's pretty silly to only blame conservatives. Btw Canada is a sovereign nation we could cancel nafta at anytime no matter what the us congress is doing. You have to have deals elsewhere if you're going to scrap it. Like look at Europe and Asia to open markets there. Better to get the ducks in a row before you cancel it. Besides, it didn't seem to be a big issue with the previous government either, Harper seemed to be quite content with letting the US roll over Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khay Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 12 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: Actually New Zealand just banned foreign ownership .... so try again... ??? Try what again??? New Zealand did it therefore it must be right. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 12 hours ago, redhdlois said: The older I get, the more I want peace & quiet.........not having to drive around the block a million times to try and find a parking spot or having to get on the highway before 2:30 in order to get over the 2nd Narrows bridge. My main concern about moving to the island is missing out on going to Canuck games lol You just described Victoria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 11 hours ago, debluvscanucks said: This is nothing that extra supply will fix. At least not in places like Richmond, where new supply is marketed to (aimed AT) foreigners and scooped up in presales that avoid additional foreign owner taxes. Condos are the hot market as they have work arounds. Lands assemblies are decimating entire blocks for condos to sell in this fashion. Not for people to live in so much....more for people to speculate on. Some are flipped every year or two and now new homes are also being wiped out to be replaced by condos. But it would Deb, if done correctly. The city of Vancouver and the province own billions in buildings (e.g. http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/city-of-vancouver-property-endowment-fund-2018) and land that could easily be set aside for new housing projects for first time buyers as leasehold property co-op's to give people priced out of the market at chance to get in. No foreign speculator is going to be able to get into a co-op, the rules are very specific about who gets to live in them. We could provide 10s of thousands of new homes this way if the municipal, provincial and even the fed's could coordinate on it like they did for the area around false creek and granville island like they did in the 1980's. For other freehold units the city and province could also provide more tax incentives to developers to create more affordable condo's, or allow them to build an extra floor or two to make up the difference, and also incentivize more freehold co-op's, that again foreign buyers wouldn't be interested in at all. I really love the co-op model as a big part of the solution, it works very well. There are options but instead Weaver is whipping up populist bs and in the meantime things that have worked before very well like the false creek leasehold buildings don't get done. You can't turn back the clock on the market but there things that could be done right now that aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 4 hours ago, NHL'er said: I somewhat agree... But yea don't think such blatant discrimination would fare too well under our Constitution... A ban on ownership isn't discrimination....this isn't about preventing people from being here, it's about regulating things to eliminate vacant properties, speculating and flipping, and things that are creating real issues. Can you scoot across borders and just buy up everything you want? No, there are restrictions in place and this is similar to that. You can't take an orange or a plant across borders if they're foreign...is that discrimination? Some things are considered to pose potential risk. to our country and are banned. So activity in the RE market is not immune to that. Hell, border agents can say "nope, can't come here" if they decide to. You have to declare how much money you're bringing in over $10,000.00 (I believe). Entry points that have checks and balances. The real estate market currently lacks but desperately needs that in an overhaul. Why should it be an open ended deal without limits (or even transparency in gobbling up property? If a ban is needed to allow for review and changes, that's what needs to happen. Although, there IS discrimination taking place in that condos are being marketed directly overseas in presales, thus eliminating any opportunity for residents here to buy in as they're gobbled up before even hitting the market. There are loopholes that are allowing people to exploit the real estate market and it is creating hardship and displacement for many residents here. Not only is it not discrimination, it's the duty of Government to review and fix things. If it means putting a half to foreign speculating on our land, that's how it is. No one's closing the doors to come here, just to own property that will sit vacant and is being flipped (repeatedly), thus creating inaffordability issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 16 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: But it would Deb, if done correctly. The city of Vancouver and the province own billions in buildings (e.g. http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/city-of-vancouver-property-endowment-fund-2018) and land that could easily be set aside for new housing projects for first time buyers as leasehold property co-op's to give people priced out of the market at chance to get in. No foreign speculator is going to be able to get into a co-op, the rules are very specific about who gets to live in them. We could provide 10s of thousands of new homes this way if the municipal, provincial and even the fed's could coordinate on it like they did for the area around false creek and granville island like they did in the 1980's. For other freehold units the city and province could also provide more tax incentives to developers to create more affordable condo's, or allow them to build an extra floor or two to make up the difference, and also incentivize more freehold co-op's, that again foreign buyers wouldn't be interested in at all. I really love the co-op model as a big part of the solution, it works very well. There are options but instead Weaver is whipping up populist bs and in the meantime things that have worked before very well like the false creek leasehold buildings don't get done. You can't turn back the clock on the market but there things that could be done right now that aren't. Oh I agree....if they'd do that. But it's greed driven and all land is now viewed as potential get rich schemes and co op's just aren't part of that vision. Even the Richmond Oval had the promise of low income housing.....but it falls away as quickly as things are built and, often, those thresholds aren't met. Richmond is a mess....I use that as the start and end point to see how things are unfolding. Because it's the hub as our council here has failed us, miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 3 hours ago, Ryan Strome said: Shouldn't Chretien be blamed as well considering he signed nafta into law? At fault yes. Blamed no. NAFTA was the first major trade agreement with the FIPA in it written in at the demands of america against the outcries of Canadian economists who warned about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 22 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: Richmond is a mess....I use that as the start and end point to see how things are unfolding. Because it's the hub as our council here has failed us, miserably. What with all of those hotels on 2 road in steveston they look like $&!#. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 What we need is a good ol' fashion housing market crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhdlois Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Baer. said: You just described Victoria. Yes....I have friends that sold in West Van a few years ago and bought a house there and since then prices have soared and they said the traffic is getting worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayor MCcheese Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 No need to ban all foreigners. Just ban the Chinese. They're the problem, so no need to punish everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NHL'er Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said: A ban on ownership isn't discrimination....this isn't about preventing people from being here, it's about regulating things to eliminate vacant properties, speculating and flipping, and things that are creating real issues. Can you scoot across borders and just buy up everything you want? No, there are restrictions in place and this is similar to that. You can't take an orange or a plant across borders if they're foreign...is that discrimination? Some things are considered to pose potential risk. to our country and are banned. So activity in the RE market is not immune to that. Hell, border agents can say "nope, can't come here" if they decide to. You have to declare how much money you're bringing in over $10,000.00 (I believe). Entry points that have checks and balances. The real estate market currently lacks but desperately needs that in an overhaul. Why should it be an open ended deal without limits (or even transparency in gobbling up property? If a ban is needed to allow for review and changes, that's what needs to happen. Although, there IS discrimination taking place in that condos are being marketed directly overseas in presales, thus eliminating any opportunity for residents here to buy in as they're gobbled up before even hitting the market. There are loopholes that are allowing people to exploit the real estate market and it is creating hardship and displacement for many residents here. Not only is it not discrimination, it's the duty of Government to review and fix things. If it means putting a half to foreign speculating on our land, that's how it is. No one's closing the doors to come here, just to own property that will sit vacant and is being flipped (repeatedly), thus creating inaffordability issues. I was referring specifically to the ban based on Nationalities or Race. That is very clearly unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted August 26, 2018 Author Share Posted August 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, mayor MCcheese said: No need to ban all foreigners. Just ban the Chinese. They're the problem, so no need to punish everyone else. Pretty sure Canada will not make laws based on race /ethnicity. Simple - ban all foreign ownership that owner does not live in. Simple. We need our housing for working Canadians and families that contribute to your communities.... Vacant foreign owned homes give our communities nothing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 9 minutes ago, mayor MCcheese said: No need to ban all foreigners. Just ban the Chinese. They're the problem, so no need to punish everyone else. China is an important trading partner of ours, we cannot single them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Warhippy said: At fault yes. Blamed no. NAFTA was the first major trade agreement with the FIPA in it written in at the demands of america against the outcries of Canadian economists who warned about it Pretty sure you and I are on the same page about nafta I'm just pointing out both parties are to blame not just conservatives which is only who you tried to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 18 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: Ending Foreign Property ownership in BC Lets get it done now... our kids will need it.... https://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics/mike-smyth-weaver-argues-its-time-to-ban-foreign-real-estate-buyers Why is this reckless policy? Sure it tackles the problem but it's ham fisted overkill. What's the problem? Foreign money stashing their cash in real estate in a stable economy. It's happening all over the western world. Not unique in the lower mainland. The people who are buying up Canadian real estate are afraid of the economy in their home countries crashing due to the boom and bust cycles that happen in unregulated or mismanaged economies. If somebody wants to immigrate, great. Move here, become a part of the community, contribute to the economy. Open a business. I have no problem with this. Medical tourism. Coming to BC to have a baby where the child is granted automatic citizenship. Sorry. Parking capital. Vacant units. Again sorry. The answer I think is regulation. But just plug the holes don't drop an a-bomb on it. Foreign buyers should have to prove that their money was obtained by legitimate means AT THEIR OWN COST. Property needs to be lived in. Of course, enforce this. What happens when you hammer demand? You get a market crash. People out there will end up with mortgages greater than the market value of the property. This isn't the US. There, they can just walk away from the property and the bank becomes the owner. In Canada, they have to ride it out. People are on the hook for their mortgage no matter what (barring bankruptcy) I agree with people who said that these problems should have been dealt with 20 years ago but back in the 90's, Vancouverites thought that they were winning the lottery. Sorry their kids have to leave the province to afford a reasonable life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 1 hour ago, NHL'er said: I was referring specifically to the ban based on Nationalities or Race. That is very clearly unconstitutional. It's not "based on" race...it applies to anyone foreign to this country. Other countries have already implemented this. Ban might be the wrong word. "Freeze". China has very strict regulations about foreign ownership of property so, perhaps, adopting some of that? Making regulations that eliminate the exploitation of things. Making it more difficult to speculate on our farm land, to inflate values in flipping schemes, to do away with numbered trust companies with little history to draw on, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.