Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
(Thread IKs: ZShakespeare)
 
  • Post
  • Reply
PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane
Is there any evidence that the housing shortage is meaningfully affected by people who own properties that used as second homes, and stay empty most of the time? It just doesn't make common sense to me. I know a few people in my building who use this place as their "second home" and literally none of the places they own would be the least bit affordable if they were rented out or sold, and further: they would not give a single gently caress about a vacancy tax because they are obscenely wealthy.

I just don't see how the math adds up. Maybe you can use that extra money to build affordable housing, but I don't think it's going to change anyone's behaviour in a meaningful way. It's just another cost of doing exactly what they want to do, and the wealthy are more than willing to pay it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

infernal machines
Oct 11, 2012

we have sealed ourselves away behind our money, growing inward, generating a seamless universe of self.
The vacancy tax exists to prevent people from sitting on units while the market is depressed, waiting for higher rents or sales prices. Either the asset is put into productive use or you pay the government for the privilege of idling it and maybe they can do something useful (lol) with the proceeds.

The tax is punitive, but if you want to pay it, that's fine. Ideally the revenue is being earmarked for affordable housing or something.

This poo poo does work on the commercial side. We had large stretches of retail on main streets laying fallow until we got rid of the tax break on unoccupied properties. All of a sudden huge swaths of previously unrented retail space started getting leased at "market" rates rather than the owners sitting on it until their unicorn tenant appeared.

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Feb 1, 2023

Sashimi
Dec 26, 2008


College Slice

PT6A posted:

Is there any evidence that the housing shortage is meaningfully affected by people who own properties that used as second homes, and stay empty most of the time? It just doesn't make common sense to me. I know a few people in my building who use this place as their "second home" and literally none of the places they own would be the least bit affordable if they were rented out or sold, and further: they would not give a single gently caress about a vacancy tax because they are obscenely wealthy.

I just don't see how the math adds up. Maybe you can use that extra money to build affordable housing, but I don't think it's going to change anyone's behaviour in a meaningful way. It's just another cost of doing exactly what they want to do, and the wealthy are more than willing to pay it.
The youtube channel Oh the Urbanity did a video on this a few days ago, and their answer is basically no.

We need to be building more affordable housing in places people actually want to live.

DaysBefore
Jan 24, 2019


infernal machines posted:

Ideally the revenue is being earmarked for affordable housing or something.

Lol nice mistype idiot, that's not how you spell 'increased police budgets'

Toalpaz
Mar 20, 2012

Peace through overwhelming determination
There should be little meaningful difference to renting out and then renting your own home, right? Is the issue then you feel you aren't charging enough?

infernal machines
Oct 11, 2012

we have sealed ourselves away behind our money, growing inward, generating a seamless universe of self.
I think the issue is the belief that ownership trumps tenants' rights, so they can just get the gently caress out if you decide you want to use the house for whatever purpose.

People don't seem to understand the concept of losing rights to their property when they make the choice to rent it to someone. Like, that's not part of the transaction for them. They don't comprehend risks or responsibilities, it's a purely one way transaction where they accept money from the renter until they don't want to anymore.

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"

infernal machines posted:

I think the issue is the belief that ownership trumps tenants' rights, so they can just get the gently caress out if you decide you want to use the house for whatever purpose.

People don't seem to understand the concept of losing rights to their property when they make the choice to rent it to someone. Like, that's not part of the transaction for them. They don't comprehend risks or responsibilities, it's a purely one way transaction where they accept money from the renter until they don't want to anymore.

Yeah, I'd love to see the exact same level of stability between renting and owning. No loopholes to evict someone. If you don't like it, don't become a landlord. No you don't get to convert your basement to a suite, get some single mom and her kid in to pay you 50% of their income for a few years then kick them to the curb because you don't need their money anymore and want a man-cave, or your now teenage son wants a more private space to live while he goes to college.

I'd love to see a system where the only way to evict someone is for not paying the rent or being an actual toxic or dangerous tenant. But wanting to move yourself or your family in, or wanting to renovate or demolish the building? Better make a deal with the tenant because the moment you rented to someone you made a commitment. Don't like it? Sell the building to someone else willing to be a more responsible landlord.

I'd also love to see amateur landlords become a vanishingly small percentage of the landlord class. More purpose built rental buildings that will remain secure rentals for the lifetime of the building, fewer homeowners needing a temporary mortgage slave.

Lain Iwakura
Aug 5, 2004

The body exists only to verify one's own existence.

Taco Defender
Better yet: build more co-ops and also let the government force the cost of housing down. If the government ran housing for the general population, we'd see actual competition as opposed to outright collusion.

ecureuilmatrix
Mar 30, 2011
Make it the landlord’s responsibility to find an equivalent dwelling for the renter.

Mr. Mercury
Aug 13, 2021



Dr. Hinshaw now BC's deputy PHO

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Mr. Mercury posted:

Dr. Hinshaw now BC's deputy PHO

Did they check her references?

Lars Blitzer
Aug 17, 2004

He drinks a Whiskey drink, he drinks a Vodka drink
He drinks a Lager drink, he drinks a Cider drink...


Dick Tracy's number one fan.

PT6A posted:

Did they check her references?

Obviously not. She was hired, after all.

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane
Did I miss the news and every other doctor on earth died?

Like, seriously, how the gently caress does that interview go?

“Can you describe why you left your last position?”

“Everyone hated me because I was just stunningly incompetent and dishonest, and by the end of it, both sides of the political spectrum were out for my blood.”

“Ah, an incompetent, moderate weasel! Welcome aboard, you’ll fit in wonderfully I think!”

Femtosecond
Aug 2, 2003

PT6A posted:

Is there any evidence that the housing shortage is meaningfully affected by people who own properties that used as second homes, and stay empty most of the time?

One could look at Vancouver for an answer as this city has for years now had layers of policy around limiting this issue, with a municipal empty homes tax, a provincial Speculation Tax (defacto empty homes tax), Airbnb regulation (that aim to ban a sole condo being wholly used for Airbnb) and furthermore the foreign buyers tax (which would dissuade foreigners from buying pied-a-terres and leaving them empty.

The net result of all this policy work is that rental vacancy in Vancouver has only continued to decline and rents have continued to spike upward.

These taxes have in real terms definitely added more rental to the marketplace, which is definitely good. Off the top of my head I think a CMHC report put the number at around 8000-11000 in the first main years of this thing. But the problem is that that's a mostly one time thing. You're not gonna get that number every year, though the taxes will limit the accumulation of empty homes.

Further relief for renters will only come with more rental units becoming available, and it will not be through tightening these taxes. There's a smaller and smaller amount of recognizably empty homes out there to put onto the market (Vancouver figures there's less than 1000), so going forward the more effective way to make more homes available will be to build more apartments.

Lain Iwakura
Aug 5, 2004

The body exists only to verify one's own existence.

Taco Defender




Nearly zero progress in 30 years. Ban RS-1 zoning in Vancouver and allow more homes to be built on a single lot. That is the solution.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-multiplex-single-family-zoning-rs-proposal

quote:

Starting in early February 2023, staff with the City of Vancouver will kick off public consultation on the most significant change to single-family residential zoning in the city in decades, exceeding the gravity of the introduction of laneway homes in 2009.

In a presentation to Vancouver City Council on Wednesday, City staff unveiled their preliminary proposal to allow increased density for all single-family neighbourhoods across Vancouver.

What is being proposed for all single-family areas is considered gentle densification — not high density uses. Under the proposed changes, standard single-family lots could see up to four units per lot, while larger lots — mainly found within the Vancouver Westside — could see up to six units per lot.

Watch as this creates heavy debate and NIMBY-ism. It's the right thing to do but you know that chucklefucks will decry this as "destroying character" as if somehow their Vancouver Special is worth keeping erect.

DaysBefore
Jan 24, 2019


The rent cap in NS was extended to New Years 2023 but even so average rent rose 10% in Hali (highest in the country suck it losers) thanks to turnover price jacking so really looking forward to 2024

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane
The other thing about "neighbourhood character" that consistently pisses me off is how, apparently, knocking down a tasteful older home and building a new monstrosity a single red hair from the allowable limit on the property, three stories tall, a monument to the diminutive nature of your forlorn manhood, is completely okay and lots of people do it! But duplexes or low-rises? Oh dear god, no! The precious character would change!

DaysBefore
Jan 24, 2019


Character is a bullshit excuse and everybody knows it. Seen plenty of loving beautiful Victorian and Edwardian places (that, to be fair, were probably pretty run down on the inside but even so) get bulldozed in favour of another cookie cutter SFH.

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane
The character they wish to preserve is "only rich people live in this neighbourhood."

Cool Kids Club Soda
Aug 20, 2010
😎❄️🌃🥤🧋🍹👌💯

PT6A posted:

The character they wish to preserve is "only rich people live in this neighbourhood."


Still relevant, a letter to the editor from last month

quote:

In today's new development world, you could probably request to build an amusement park on a single lot, and after quick thought by the city, you might just get it. I've personally seen a 13-room apartment built on what once was a single-family home lot; yes, how much review time would that have taken?

Pity the poor homeowner who might just wake up one morning only to find that the greased-lightning city planning department has once again approved some monstrosity next door.

Lain Iwakura
Aug 5, 2004

The body exists only to verify one's own existence.

Taco Defender
One of the things about Vancouver that nobody talks about is that if you look at the SkyTrain stations, there is a way to tell how a station area developed based on the density surrounding it.





These two images are 15 years apart--2007 and 2022. The reason for the density is that this is former industrial land--now known as Marine Gateway. This same thing happened at Joyce-Collingwood station and further examples elsewhere in Metro Vancouver include Sapperton, which until the 2000s was home to a giant Labatt's brewery.



Further down from Joyce-Collingwood, you have both 29th Avenue and Nanaimo stations. Both have seen very little in the way of densification because surprise surprise the land around it is all residential and in particular, RS-1. We can go one station further to Commercial-Broadway and we end up with this mess of a project:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/broadway-commercial-safeway-redevelopment-1780-east-broadway-2021

quote:

Another revision has been made to the proposal to redevelop the Safeway grocery store site next to the SkyTrain Commercial-Broadway Station hub in East Vancouver.

After engaging with the community and City of Vancouver staff on the previous design iteration since Fall 2020, the Broadway Commercial project at 1780 East Broadway has been downsized again, and there are some noticeable public benefit tradeoffs as a result of the reduced density.

One residential storey has been slashed from each of the three towers — now at heights ranging between 24 and 29 storeys above the podium’s retail plinth — and towers are now also slightly slimmer.

Nobody wants this project because they're afraid of having a lovely Safeway redeveloped into new housing. Of course, they're resistant to seeing any level of densification nearby. The majority of densification that has happened nearby has again largely been on former industrial land--see the Porter project just up the street on Victoria.

The CoV and surrounding municipalities are all about transit-orientated developments provided the land the transit cuts through is former industrial. The consequences of this behaviour over the past 40 years has been people getting entrenched on having their SFH near SkyTrain stations spared from redevelopment.

These homeowners can stuff it and accept that they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

Lain Iwakura fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Feb 1, 2023

ZShakespeare
Jul 20, 2003

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose!

PT6A posted:

The other thing about "neighbourhood character" that consistently pisses me off is how, apparently, knocking down a tasteful older home and building a new monstrosity a single red hair from the allowable limit on the property, three stories tall, a monument to the diminutive nature of your forlorn manhood, is completely okay and lots of people do it! But duplexes or low-rises? Oh dear god, no! The precious character would change!

why are redheads catching strays here?

Hamelekim
Feb 25, 2006

And another thing... if global warming is real. How come it's so damn cold?
Ramrod XTreme
Every home owner near a sky train fears increases in crime. I know of two in Coquitlam who moved because they were within a couple of blocks where the new sky train station went in.

It’s too bad that they are so selfish but that is most people. You do what you perceive as in your best interest first. It’s why we have so many problems while having so much wealth.

Cool Kids Club Soda
Aug 20, 2010
😎❄️🌃🥤🧋🍹👌💯
Edmonton residents express frustration over public consultation process for south-side 'health hub'


quote:

(Bligh said,) "Some of the answers about how they would operate the site, the purpose of the site, I think they were very good. It doesn't address the issue of why put it in a location that's as vibrant and robust as what they've chosen, and the damage that it will cause."

...

"I heard a lot of your description of why this is good for people that have addictions and why this helps the people that are in need of that kind of help. What I didn't hear in there was any consideration for the affected neighbourhood… That's not part of your decision criteria," Bligh told Tanti.

"No, it's not," Tanti replied.

"How could it not be?" Bligh asked.

"It's because it's where the services are needed," Tanti told him.

After the meeting, a Ritchie resident of 20 years and Bear Clan volunteer told CTV News Edmonton she feared the community did not understand how the overdose prevention site would benefit residents.

"I think there's a lot of misunderstanding that having this site present will cause an influx of unhoused people or criminals into our area, but the way I see it there's already issues with homelessness and addictions and mental health challenges in our community,"

This ties into homeowners fears of increased density and transit access leading to more crime and general urban decay - these issues are already here in these neighborhoods, and acting like we can "keep it out" is not going to work

Lain Iwakura
Aug 5, 2004

The body exists only to verify one's own existence.

Taco Defender

Hamelekim posted:

Every home owner near a sky train fears increases in crime. I know of two in Coquitlam who moved because they were within a couple of blocks where the new sky train station went in.

It’s too bad that they are so selfish but that is most people. You do what you perceive as in your best interest first. It’s why we have so many problems while having so much wealth.

I maintain a blog about transit lore in Metro Vancouver and I have a small collection of "crime train" articles that one of these days I am going to turn into a short post.

Fortunately it has been relatively quiet on the extensions to Arbutus and Langley. I honestly think that the media finally has wisened up to these articles being bunk when it is more sexy to talk about a lack of transit.

Too bad half of the ads on TV during the local news are for home improvement or real estate. It speaks volumes about how poison-pilled people are when the target audience for getting this poo poo fixed are spoon-fed a reality that isn't sustainable.

DaysBefore
Jan 24, 2019


I remember the SkyTrain sucking rear end when I was growing up in Surrey, is it based now or was it always awesome and I was just too dumb to realise

Lain Iwakura
Aug 5, 2004

The body exists only to verify one's own existence.

Taco Defender

DaysBefore posted:

I remember the SkyTrain sucking rear end when I was growing up in Surrey, is it based now or was it always awesome and I was just too dumb to realise

It only sucks if you live in Surrey although with it going to Langley will change it to "a lot less suck". I grew up in Surrey too so I know the pain.

Arivia
Mar 17, 2011

ZShakespeare posted:

why are redheads catching strays here?

we deserve it

Mr. Apollo
Nov 8, 2000

I know MAID discussion was a few pages back but a co-worker told me a MAID story today.

His 89 year old grandmother needed part of her foot amputated due to diabetes. She was also offered MAID instead of the surgery because she was told that the physiotherapy would be difficult for someone her age.

Less Fat Luke
May 23, 2003

Exciting Lemon
And you believed him?

Ask the same guy how much money he'll lose if he gets a raise.

ZShakespeare
Jul 20, 2003

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose!

DaysBefore posted:

I remember the SkyTrain sucking rear end when I was growing up in Surrey, is it based now or was it always awesome and I was just too dumb to realise

Trains are good.

PittTheElder
Feb 13, 2012

:geno: Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Lain Iwakura posted:

Nearly zero progress in 30 years. Ban RS-1 zoning in Vancouver and allow more homes to be built on a single lot. That is the solution.

I'm not disagreeing with you because that does need to happen, but it's insufficient; light commercial usage must be allowed as well, otherwise you just end up with denser suburbs.

PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Feb 2, 2023

Lain Iwakura
Aug 5, 2004

The body exists only to verify one's own existence.

Taco Defender

PittTheElder posted:

I'm not disagreeing with you because that does need to happen, but it's insufficient; light commercial usage must be allowed as well, otherwise you just end up with denser suburbs.

No. Absolutely in agreement. We shouldn't have to go to a large intersection to have any sort of commercial offerings. I should be able to go downstairs and get a coffee or get some groceries.

COPE 27
Sep 11, 2006

Hamelekim posted:

Every home owner near a sky train fears increases in crime. I know of two in Coquitlam who moved because they were within a couple of blocks where the new sky train station went in.

It’s too bad that they are so selfish but that is most people. You do what you perceive as in your best interest first. It’s why we have so many problems while having so much wealth.

Lmao wtf I assumed people would pay extra to live on a transit line? Oh no, my neighbourhood services are too good! It might attract the poors!

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

PittTheElder posted:

I'm not disagreeing with you because that does need to happen, but it's insufficient; light commercial usage must be allowed as well, otherwise you just end up with denser suburbs.

My favourite thing about living in the Beltline is my complete lack of need to drive or use transit to access essentially all necessary services. And it’s actually faster than driving to the grocery store when I lived in a suburb! By a lot!

And there are four groceries within walking distance, plus another 5 or so smaller grocery/convenience stores.

Cool Kids Club Soda
Aug 20, 2010
😎❄️🌃🥤🧋🍹👌💯

Lain Iwakura posted:

No. Absolutely in agreement. We shouldn't have to go to a large intersection to have any sort of commercial offerings. I should be able to go downstairs and get a coffee or get some groceries.

This is one of the things I miss the most about living overseas. A lot of countries tend towards having businesses, clinics or what have you at ground level, with apartments on top. In places like these, you also see that there tends to be a lot less back alleys - instead of being reserved for parking or through traffic, the lane behind a building is more buildings, with businesses on the first floor

It doesn't just make neighborhoods more walkable and livable, I find. Having reasons to be out in your immediate community means... You're out in your community. There are more opportunities to interact with your neighbors and people visiting your area. There tends to be more common areas where people can congregate in these kinds of cities, like pocket parks or fresh markets, which further encourages involvement

Which hey when you know your neighbours more it can make it easier to think of them as people and care about them instead of ruthlessly focusing on your own well-being and silo'ing yourself off. One of the things I joked about when I first started living abroad is that sometimes it felt like my local 7-11 clerks knew me better than my friends, just because of how much I saw them

Femtosecond
Aug 2, 2003

QC media did their usual thing of locking arms, becoming as aggrieved as possible and got their apology.

quote:

Anti-Islamophobia representative Amira Elghawaby apologizes for past comments about Quebecers
Quebec government, Pierre Poilievre have called for Elghawaby's removal

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/amira-elghawaby-trudeau-poilievre-blanchet-1.6733364


The federal government's new anti-Islamophobia representative Amira Elghawaby apologized Wednesday for past remarks about the prevalence of anti-Islam sentiment in Quebec.

Elghawaby, who was appointed the special representative on combating Islamophobia last week, made the remarks before meeting with Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet, who had requested the meeting to push back against her 2019 remarks.

"I would like to say that I am extremely sorry for the way that my words have carried, how I have hurt the people of Quebec, and this is what I am going to express to Mr. Blanchet," she said.

"I understand that the words and the way that I said them have hurt the people of Quebec. I have been listening very carefully. I have heard you and I know what you're feeling and I'm sorry."

The controversy is linked to an opinion column Elghawaby co-authored with Bernie Farber, the former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen in 2019.

The column comments on Quebec's controversial Bill 21, which bans provincial public servants from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs.

"Unfortunately, the majority of Quebecers appear to be swayed not by the rule of law, but by anti-Muslim sentiment," Elghawaby and Farber wrote.

In the column, Elghawaby and Farber said that they came to that conclusion after a Léger Marketing poll found that the 88 per cent of Quebecers who held negative views of Islam overwhelmingly supported the ban on religious symbols for public servants.

"I believe she does not know Quebec. She does not know our history and I will be pleased as a citizen, as a party leader and as an anthropologist, to discuss Quebec history with her," Blanchet said Wednesday morning.

Jean-François Roberge, Quebec's minister responsible for the French language, said earlier this week that Elghawaby "seems to be overcome by an anti-Quebec sentiment."

"All she did was try to justify her hateful comments," he said. "That doesn't fly. She must resign and if she doesn't, the government must remove her immediately."

After hearing her apology, Roberge said that Elghawaby was trying to explain her remarks just days earlier.

"I'm glad that she apologized but she still has to resign," he said.

...



Maybe that's enough or maybe the politicians will keep braying for her removal.

Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Feb 2, 2023

McGavin
Sep 18, 2012

You have hurt the feelings of the Quebecois people.

Femtosecond
Aug 2, 2003

McGavin posted:

You have hurt the feelings of the Quebecois people.

sorry

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Madkal
Feb 11, 2008

I believe in all the ways that they say you can lose your body
Fallen Rib

McGavin posted:

You have hurt the feelings of the Quebecois people.

Truly the most oppressed people in Canada. Also truly the real first nation of Canada.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply