|
Hard to say what it will do for rents. Vancouver was already jammed packed full of amateur landlords that don't have the first clue regarding the Residential Tenancy Act. In the short term I expect that the delusion of 1.2 million dollar Unless of course the wheels come of the economy when it unravels.  the wheels are totally going to come offCultural Imperial posted:Anecdotally, what's the worst income to house price ratio you guys have heard of for anyone buying a real estate? An ex-coworker of my wife who was 45 years old and making ~45K at the time, bought a 650K house on a 40 year amortization. Hopefully she outlives the mortgage.
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Have you guys learned to scapegoat immigrants yet for the bubble? During the peak of the housing boom in the US TIME magazine ran a story about how due to immigrants the housing bubble would never deflate or pop. Absolutely! It is total hogwash of course, but since about a 1/3 of Vancouver is ethnic Asian it is a really easy narrative. The new neighbors that bought that over priced dump are Chinese, so you just assume that they must be from China instead of talking to them and finding out they're from Calgary. If you take a look as some of those marketing links in the OP, you will find how the local real estate marketers have quite nicely built up the yellow invasion of Vancouver. This is why Saskatoon, another hotbed of Asian immigration, is also up for reasons that are never quite adequately explained.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:ok, rough back of the napkin calculation; ~500 for each 100k borrowed, 25 year amortization, 5% interest payments. That means she would have had a monthly payment of $3250. Of course, she probably got a sweet deal and is paying $2600 or so on a 40 year amortization 3% interest mortgage? At 45k/year, that's more than 50% of her monthly take home income. How the gently caress do you live on that? Well you do what everyone else does in Vancouver, you find someone to live in your basement. Last I heard she now has a couple of roommates as well. Going into your 50's, owning your home and having roommates is the quintessential Canadian dream isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
flashman posted:There are stricter lending rules for your mortgage if it has to be backed by the bank rather than the taxpayer, so these people are probably getting higher mortgages than would be possible with a proper downpayment. Anecdotally I have heard that the banks have "encouraged" people to make smaller downpayments than they initially planned. They want the CMHC to cover all the risk, particularly since they are fully aware it is a bubble. According to Garth Turner the average down payment is now 7% in Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
312 posted:But I was referring to the cyclical nature, it bounces from high to low every year in that graph, and it's not seasonal. The spring and fall are typically higher sales, but also have larger new list volumes. Not many people list in December, so that is why the ratio climbs as high as it does, to drop off to slightly below average in January when listings resume.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Any chance Canada would offer Visas to people willing to buy foreclosures/property if/when the bubble pops? You would think "Hey Americans! Hate paying for healthcare? Well now you don't have to just buy a house in Canada!" would be an easy sell and a simple way to get prices back up after a pop. I would expect that this idea has roughly the same probability of occurring as it did in the USA circa 2009. That said, it is not exactly the most difficult country to immigrate to in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Uhh what? Mortgage rules just got much more stringent over the past few years. Amortization was reduced to 25 years over the past 3ish years. Thats huge. You can't blame the federal CPC for housing at all. And all that change did was put it back to basically where it was in 2006, which is when 0 down/40 year mortgages were introduced. The CPC gets to wear this bubble proudly, as they most certainly are responsible for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:And the whole reason for having stringent rules regarding lending was the Toronto housing crash of 1988/1989, basically what we saw in America from 2005 to 2008 but on a smaller scale. Were it not for those rules, instated by the Liberals in the early '90s, we would have been right alongside America, lending to people who cannot afford to pay, etc. The Canadian banks were begging the federal government to loosen up the rules but not until the CPC was elected did it happen. It is a bit muddled in Vancouver as you could easily argue that the housing bubble here, started to inflate at least as early as 2002. Unfortunately when the CPC came to power and changed the rules it took an already ridiculous housing market here and goosed it into low orbit. The rest of Canada is a bit late to the party*, but here is the hell we have been living with for a decade in lotus land.  * presumably
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Can we see these sort of small-landlord rentals go up roughly in step with the rise in prices? (i've not heard of this) Is the splitting of single family homes into 5 lovely rentals a contributing cause to the rise in prices or simply a response to the rise in prices? (the latter seems far more plausible) Are people actually leaving so many apartments vacant while trying forever to sell them for a gazillion times their price? (a study from 2-3 years ago found this to be the case in less then 8% of apartments in downtown) ***INCOMING ANECDOTE*** A commentator at one of the local bear blogs, who has mls access, did a quick scan through occupancy codes for what is currently available for sale. I cannot find the post at the moment, but it was something north of 20% of for sale properties were currently unoccupied. Turning big old houses into 3-5 unit apartment buildings has been a fine Vancouver tradition since the early 20th century. I suspect that it is a response to rents that have always been a bit high. What is new over the last decade is taking a lot, tearing it down and building a new 3 unit strata (front, back duplex with garden suite). This is likewise a response to rising prices. At some level you have to know when you purchase a spec property for 1.2 million, that actually getting someone to give you 1.6 million in a year is going to be tough. However, finding three different suckers to give you 700-900K for a new build is feasible. There were honest to god, 750K basement suites for sale here in 2012.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Rime posted:Fort Nelson is a community of 4000 people, in the middle of wilderness, at the extreme north of BC just below Alaska. It has no economy and relies entirely on seasonal employment in resource extraction. Average temperature in the winter is -50*C. Anyone that has lived in Vancouver has had their perspective slowly stripped away over the last decade. As I was looking at that listing, I had a small voice muttering about how they think their kitchen will get them that much. Given enough time even the absurd starts to look normal. Before this ends, there will be thousands that see a 500K shack and jump on that "deal" before it is gone. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
If things continue to track what happened in the States, it is likely we are 3-4 months away from it becoming unmistakably noticeable. Hopefully, this will be vindication for looking like a lone nut. quote:
This graph in the OP has since been updated.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Make a spreadsheet of the monthly savings you'd have from renting vs the mortgage payment for an equivalent place. Ask and ye shall receive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:And yeah, 1 br or bachelors in 40-50 year old buildings (that haven't had an update to their kitchens or bathrooms since) go for about 800 here. 2br with same quality go for 1000-1200. Anything that is remotely up to date is $1500+. My friend is all super excited because she found a small 900 sqft 2br place with laundry and fixtures and paint updated in the early 2000's for only $1600. With rents like that, gently caress it, I'd rather buy. This is unfortunately the emotional (and bad math) reason that people are still buying in this market. I am not familiar with the Victoria market, but I doubt there are condo's going for what they would need to be in order have a $1600 a month payment. Even assuming that there were, you are then looking at a whole slew of additional costs that you don't have as a renter. If you have ever owned a condo you would also know that a strata council can be every bit as annoying as a landlord, and probably is worse, with the power to fine you. It is almost guaranteed that the value of your place is going to decline (condos in Vancouver have already returned to 2007 prices) over then next 5 years, which means that you will get to sell it at a loss. Or do what a whole lot of people in Vancouver are going to end up doing, and hold onto it because they cannot afford to sell it. Either living in their prison telling themselves that they didn't really want to relocate to take that job offer, or renting it out for less than their mortgage payments are. My wife has a friend doing the latter, and we are both curious when she will notice that she is losing a not insignificant amount of money every month. I have some college acquaintances that want to get a divorce, but cannot afford to sell their Kelowna house so are suffering through it. Having a lovely laundry situation (or pets or basement suites), while annoying, is not as bad as it can get.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:You know what? Once those people bought houses, and very few people on the blogs were even talking about buying houses anymore, prices went down, because everyone who wants a house had one. It's a tautology. prices will come down when people don't want houses (at that price) anymore, and they'll come down to a price people want to pay. The fact that there are still people like BaronJutter and his wife around means prices are going to be sticky. The day when no one talks about this stuff anymore because everyone who wants a house in Vancouver has moved to Winnipeg, will be the day prices come down. Alternative Theory: They stopped talking about buying a house because houses were losing 10-20% of their value year after year, and they lost their job at the cracker factory anyways. Something like 70% of Canadians already own their home already, so I am not sure where this unsated demand is coming from.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The other 30%? You can own more than 1 house? People will keep buying houses until they don't, It's hard to say that 70% is the right number either way. Well the sales stats for the last year in Vancouver would seem to indicate that we have reached that point. Presumably we can just sit back and wait for the tautological obvious decline now. At least in houses, in the short term condo's are probably going to propped up by suckers that need to jump in at whatever the bank will let them carry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Whiteycar posted:Seems both the Canadian threads have been derailed with BC chat. Toronto isn't the center of the universe for this particular topic, now it's our turn to be popular.  ~~~ One of the local Vancouver bear blogs got leaked some insider realtor data. One of the areas in question is south of YVR in Richmond. Rejoice everyone, things are just a bit off and there is nothing at all to worry about. They have an index that says so. quote:Terra Nova I think I may just finally go buy a house after all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Not directed at you, but to determine if this is a trend at least you would have to look and see what the usually variation YoY is to see if a 30% variation is particularly out of the ordinary. Honestly the bear blogs are just as bad as anyone else when it comes to cherry picking numbers and presenting them out of context. Actually, the trend is not the interesting bit because who knows if it is a trend. Certainly the real estate boards do, but they are busy obfuscating the numbers. The part of the post that I thought was interesting was that a -40% mean and -50% median YoY decline can be listed as a -5% YoY decline in the media, and gets taken seriously. ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Does anyone know how a house price index is actually calculated? How the HPI is determined.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The low-rise owners weren't evicted at gunpoint, they got paid more than what they figure the property was worth to them. That money didn't just dissapear into a hole in the ground, the total amount of "stuff" (apartments and cash) in the economy has increased. If lovely 1970s low-rise apartment buildings were such a lucrative proposition they can build another one somewhere else. This is the same argument I imagine got used over the last few years in China, right before a project to build a new empty city was approved. Ironically, the money is actually quite literally being poured into the ground in the form of 35 unused condo towers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Edit for content: the graphic from that article Cultural Imperial linked above is pretty interesting: If you were to map construction densities over the past decade, I think it would probably mirror that one fairly closely. The existing purpose built rental stock (which is oddly all 30+ years old now) areas of West-end, Cambie/Oak corridor, Kerrisdale and Kits, etc... all have what looks like normal vacancy rates. While most of the areas that have been built up quite heavily recently, all have 2-4 times the rate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Rent control in it's current form in B.C. also doesn't actually really impact rents, because you can raise rents once a tenant leaves, and last I saw the stats the average length of tenancy in B.C. was sub-2 years. And for anyone that sticks around longer than two years, you can serve them a renoviction in order to increase the rent. The current rent controls in place are less than ideal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's seems like it's something cities should be getting into more of. Specially poorer cities that have already had their local marketed devastated, good time for the city to jump in and start socializing that poo poo. What is Vienna doing differently from what metro Vancouver is doing, other than the scale of it? While I haven't been a renter for awhile, I kind of doubt that the rental market in Canada could be legitimately described as "devastated". It is right hosed if you are trying to buy something within a budget or without expectations of +20% returns, however you can still rent a house/suite/apartment here much as you always have. The only difference is that due to the bubble, people that would normally have purchased for their stage in life, have had to stay in a rental. That said, the city has always been wretched for housing if you are on social assistance or fixed income. You won't get any arguments from me about that, and both the city and the province are deserving of all the abuse directed at them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:So this guy is making a minimum of $211k per year? Doing what exactly? Isn't $211k per year a shitload of money in Canada, or am I just poor and retarded? If only I had gone to medical school, then I too would have been able to fulfill my dream of living in a crack shack in East Vancouver. Just on the wrong side of the tracks from the DTES though, Strathcona is crazy expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
You have mentioned Vienna before in the thread. What are they doing that is different from what most of the larger metros are currently doing? Is it just the scale of it, or is there more too it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
The arguments for restrictions typically have the following features: 1) no one can say how much of foreign ownership there actually is, but it is a HUGE problem because 2) the German and American foreign ownership seem to be fine, but the problem is all the crooked mainland Chinese 3) doesn't contain any policy goals that Canada gains by restricting foreign ownership, just that something magically get fixed for Canadians (with the subtext being that it is fixed for the correct type of Canadians) I am not sure how anyone can listen to someone proposing restrictions, and not know it isn't 100% racist motivated. If you have been hearing a non-racist version of it, I would love to see a link.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I simply disagree that such a proposal, in the abstract, is axiomatically racist. One certainly could advocate this for racist reasons, and doubtless that happens (perhaps in a widespread manner). But like I said - we exclude foreigners from plenty of things - indefinite residence (outside of immigration channels), jobs, owning banks - and I don't think that's racist to do so. Part of the benefit of being a nation state is the ability to give your own citizens preferential treatment in various aspects of life (whether it's a wise policy decision in any of those is an entirely separate matter). All of those things however are axiomatically xenophobic. Now that isn't to say that some restrictions are not justifiable. For instance, if you feel foreign ownership of telecommunication isn't in your national best interest due to real or perceived risks, you should disallow it. When a proposal that made that is xenophobic in nature, it isn't incumbent on me to determine whether the speaker making it isn't a racist. It is up to them to make a case that removes the doubt. Now I know that you are not arguing pro here, but in the above quote about preferential treatment: What is the preferential treatment being offered to Canadians here? We are still the only people allowed to live here indefinitely anyways. Someone making that statement shouldn't be branded immediately as a racist. However a VERY large majority of people will remove any doubt about it, if they were to actually articulate why they think it is so.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:How about this bubble then? It sounds exactly like what our government is doing to forestall the crash here, do tactics like these even work? I was under the impression that they had restricted multiple purchases in a single city awhile ago. The irony of this is that it is probably meant to encourage people to buy condos in one of China's ghost cities. It is likely that the only way to forstall a crash after a bubble is for real demand to pick up the excess capacity, and for wages to rise to levels that make the home prices affordable. Their wage inflation is such that they may be able to pull off the latter, but I am not sure they can deal with their overcapacity. Unfortunately it is seems that it is more of a effort to extend and direct the speculative mania.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:The argument for restricting foreign ownership sounds simple enough to me. It would reduce housing prices and make housing more affordable. I think everyone can agree that's a good thing. Will it? Can you quantify how much foreign investment exists, and a percentage affect it has had own home values in Vancouver or Canada? Since I already know you cannot do this simple sounding thing, I will just jump to the conclusion. If you exclude economic racism, can you provide one reason why this fact is a given in this conversation. How do you know it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:That's not a simple request at all, that's a matter for in-depth economic analysis that's beyond my skill and, I'm guessing, way beyond yours. I'm not going to bother Googling around to see if anyone else has done that research either; that's too much like schoolwork. If you wanna know the exact numbers so badly, find out yourself. You are the one claiming that it is simple, intuitive even, to see that this would fix something. I am just asking you to show your work. The data you need to prove your point doesn't exist, so you can probably save yourself some Googling. Fine-able Offense posted:Foreigners are de facto non-residents with no valid visa, meaning they can only use their properties a brief percentage of the year (depending on what their visa class is; the highest it could would be 50%). They also don't need to purchase property (if they want to visit, they can rent or get a hotel or whatever), so it's not like we're stripping them of some important right they are entitled to. Beyond that is also the fact that foreigners are given less rights and privileges while visiting Canada than legal residents are anyway, so they are below legal residents on the social-resource pecking order. Since any purchase of property by a non-resident inherently removes a limited social resource from the pool and bids up the price for the remaining resources for locals, you are essentially privileging the rights of the international 1% over poor locals. Well, I would argue that housing is a social resource in Canada in the same class as healthcare. But even if I were to concede that point, the onus is still on you to show that there a real or reasonably perceived risk to foreign ownership. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending someones non-existent right to purchase property that they don't truly need here, however this is a privilege that is extended in quite a few places. I don't believe that I am negatively impacted, if my landlord is some guy that lives in Taiwan or some dude that lives in Burnaby. House prices can be bid up just as easily by some Toronto fatcat banker, Calgary oil baron or overly leveraged Vancouver real estate agent, as it can be by some nouveau rich Asian. They can proceed to leave that house just as empty, and the local poors are in just as bad of shape. This isn't privileging the rights of the international 1%. The 1% is inherently privileged, regardless of how foreign they are. If rich people buying all the houses is the problem, maybe we should fix that instead. I don't think I am the lazy one for expecting someone proposing foreign property restrictions to come to the table with some data to back up their claims of harm. I would like someone to know how big of a problem something is before they start enacting legislation to fix it. That is not too much to ask, and the fact that is no one can answer the question is pretty telling. I expect that most arguments made for them, will continue to be thinly veiled yellow menace. (Which I believe was the entirety of my original point.) ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Apr 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Obviously no one can do this because the real estate cartels have never bothered to collect stats (whether through incompetence or because they benefit from an environment of poor information, I'm not sure), and even if they did, I'm not sure it would reflect reality anyway as it's apparently trivial to hide the origin of capital with shell corporations, etc. I think it is probably a mild contributory factor as well. I personally think a lot of the increase in Vancouver is due to the fear of foreign investment, more than the actuality of foreign investment. That and just plain old speculative mania fueled greed. For instance, I would not be surprised to learn that a majority of empty west side houses are owned not by some off shore Asian tycoon, but by local real estate agents that have made all-in bets on the housing market. I think the size of CHMC insurance portfolio for Vancouver lends credence to it not being fueled primarily by super rich parking money in real estate here. I think the real estate cartels being able to obfuscate, or outright misrepresent, the information is a significantly larger contributing factor, and would rather have that be addressed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:What's lazy is saying this: Oh I certainly don't hold with that, nor do I wish to stake out the neo-liberal, "the capital knows best" position. This particular topic will either come from a well thought out idea about the benefits of capital controls (like yours), or it can come from someones intuitive knowledge that is the fault of all the foreigners (which is distressingly common.) Calling out the latter for what it is, isn't acting in bad faith. As this thing unwinds in Canada, and the poo poo really starts to hit the fan, there is going to be a massive increase in the amount of racism directly around this topic (and it is pretty palatable in Vancouver already). None of this will be helped by people getting free passes on it. ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Apr 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:According to Ben Rabidoux, Montreal now has almost as many homes on the market as Vancouver and Toronto combined. I still haven't quite managed to pick my jaw up after reading that this morning. I thought for sure that the Vancouver SFH market, or maybe the Toronto condo glut was going to lead the charge into the abyss. How did Montreal manage to sneak in there so quietly? The prices out in Montreal didn't seem to be too crazy last I looked, though having lived in Vancouver for 15 years I no longer can tell. Did they over build, and the scale of it was just hidden behind Toronto's ridiculous over-development?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Hey, this didn't end up in here yet. http://www.greaterfool.ca/2013/05/09/busting-the-banks/ Garth Turner posted:So today, every one of the Big Six banks continues to thumb its profitable nose at the feds, merrily penning 30-year deals. In fact a few lenders, like Vancity, Coast Capital and Laurentian Bank even have 35-year loans available. This appears to have since been confirmed. 25 year mortgages will likely be the final nail in coffin as carrying costs are about to go way up.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Well at least the liberals can be blamed for the coming housing "correction" rather than the NDP.  That is good news. Aside from all of the terrible economic damage that is on the way that is.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
Ofc. Sex Robot BPD posted:Who the hell has 200k in savings fresh out of college? Presumably it is family money, or mom and dad helping out. That has become the standard in Vancouver over the last decade, particularly as income to property values dissassociated.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:That's pretty brutal, although those numbers for for some suburban monster mansion with a huge property and not a little condo in town, but I'm sure the numbers more or less scale down. I'll have to get someone to run all those numbers for us based on our specifics, but yeah, that's pretty bad. Everyone keeps saying people in condos move every 5 years and they aren't good for young couples. Maybe rich tech workers starting out in their career will "trade up" but like I said, I'm looking for something for at least the next 10 years, possibly till retirement, heck maybe even something I could retire in as well. I will never ever ever own a house, it's a financial impossibility even after a bubble pop so a condo is our only option. I know there's some pretty rich and privileged people in this thread but it seems more than a bit classist to say a condo isn't "suitable" for a young couple (is early 30's still even a young couple?) Tell me it's an idiotic time to buy, tell me I'm financially ignorant over and over, but don't tell me my life long dream of owning a little 2br condo is unsuitable and laughable. Considering three posts earlier you were saying how owning was comparable, if not cheaper, than renting I think you probably can look in a mirror and see who those people are.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Well the bank is only interested in selling you a mortgage (maybe some GICs) so it is not really in their best interest to tell you how bad of a deal what they are selling is. Similarly with real estate agents and developers. If the condo king of Toronto, Brad Lamb wants to tell people that they can make guaranteed 20K per annum profits buying his condo units, there is a certain expectation that you should ask why is he selling them to you in the first place. (It doesn't help that they are legally allowed to mislead people about it either.) Now I may be a rich tech worker, but I just have to look at things like this to know not to buy. I mean, I don't make police department money or anything. If you need more compelling evidence that things be stinky in Denmark, Fineable has run the numbers for you (and yes they pretty much scale). Just spit balling my situation, but the townhouse I purchased pre-bubble is costing me somewhere in the ball park of a 1000 bucks more than it would to rent an identical place down the street. And yes, I am for sure forgetting to include something that makes that number worse. I cannot even fathom a reason why anyone would buy it from me at the moment other than being mathematically challenged. e: And I wish I could sell it, but my wife is in full "home ownership mystique is worth more than all the money in the world" mode. Frankly, that attitude is idiocy and is a major component to how things have managed to get so bad. ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:... since generally both Swiss and Americans want to own houses, and yet, many more Americans than Swiss are actually able to realize their dream of house ownership. Citation required as that doesn't bear any semblance to the Swiss folk I know. (On either wanting or being unable to purchase.) e: VVV Ahh there is it, thank you. ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jul 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:As previously discussed, there isn't enough rental stock in the city. I think offloading the unsold units to become rental units is a step in the right direction but holy poo poo, Bentall better pray that rents don't go down. There isn't enough purpose built rental stock. However I suspect that there are more than enough amateur landlords, or soon to be accidental landlords in town to meet Vancouver's needs. The city really needed to get that white elephant off their books though, lets just hope they didn't have to secretly backstop any of it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
"That shits expensive yo! You sure you can cover it?" The rallying cry of the over-class when looking down upon the indentured masses. Thanks thread. ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 21:28
|
|