General Updates and News

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Land use has nothing to do with housing low income people and people with drug and mental health problems. The major problem is governments that continually pander to white,middle class people who are dependent on public sector employment. Governments who think the poor and ill will just fade away. My street is about to see Ocean Contractors install a bikeway. The contract was let on August 18 after the HRM council met - the contract was not on the August 17 agenda and nobody wants to talk about who authorised the expenditure. Because it is a Fed/Province/HRM deal the local MP is usually the one who makes the announcement. Somehow I doubt the Liberal MP for Dartmouth is going to hold a press conference to announce the spending of $2.3 million a few days after people were demonstrating for public funding for low income housing.

I did not know, zero land was used in the creation of housing options for people with mental health issues or that certain zoning prohibits the placement of facilities.
You learn something new everyday.

Another hot take on it, would be that limited supply due to restrictive land-use policies, during boom-times has created a untenable situation for most renters in which inflation has outstripped wage growth in HRM. So much, as to create a homeless population so large that is spilling into the parks and common areas of the city.
All the while being downplayed by homeowners who are too worried about protecting the spike in the value of their homes (retirement funds) then tackle the supply issues facing the city.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

I did not know, zero land was used in the creation of housing options for people with mental health issues or that certain zoning prohibits the placement of facilities.
You learn something new everyday.

Another hot take on it, would be that limited supply due to restrictive land-use policies, during boom-times has created a untenable situation for most renters in which inflation has outstripped wage growth in HRM. So much, as to create a homeless population so large that is spilling into the parks and common areas of the city.
All the while being downplayed by homeowners who are too worried about protecting the spike in the value of their homes (retirement funds) then tackle the supply issues facing the city.

Supply issues are just one component of a complex problem. Those people shooting/smoking dangerous drugs like meth and crack in their tent communities are unlikely to be buying a new home regardless of how "affordable" it may be. They need to be institutionalized and treated.

Then there are others who indeed got caught up in the increase in housing costs and lost their apartments. But what drove that increase? Huge federal injections of cash into the money supply that overstimulated the economy. Relaxed controls on immigration that increased demand for housing, and which depending on the circumstances, the costs of which are footed for several years by the Feds. Lots of conversions to AirBnBs which are largely uncontrolled by any govt. Increases in rents for newer properties convinced longtime landlords to invest in their older properties to make them more competitive with resultant rent increases. Offshore money being pumped into Canadian real estate which again is largely uncontrolled by the Feds. That list is just scratching the surface.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

I did not know, zero land was used in the creation of housing options for people with mental health issues or that certain zoning prohibits the placement of facilities.
You learn something new everyday.

Another hot take on it, would be that limited supply due to restrictive land-use policies, during boom-times has created a untenable situation for most renters in which inflation has outstripped wage growth in HRM. So much, as to create a homeless population so large that is spilling into the parks and common areas of the city.
All the while being downplayed by homeowners who are too worried about protecting the spike in the value of their homes (retirement funds) then tackle the supply issues facing the city.

If a government was keen to to build/own/encourage housing for low income people it would do so. The McNeil government had ZERO interest in housing.
Our home is certainly worth a lot more than it was 2 years ago. Cheap money, location and COVID have driven prices. My PC sign in the recent election was outnumbered by 9 to 1 for the Dippers. Feel free to expand on your theory of 'restrictive land use policies' - our lot is 2,549 sq ft. Our block has 25 units on the length of 260 feet.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Colin May

If a government was keen to to build/own/encourage housing for low income people it would do so. The McNeil government had ZERO interest in housing.
Our home is certainly worth a lot more than it was 2 years ago. Cheap money, location and COVID have driven prices. My PC sign in the recent election was outnumbered by 9 to 1 for the Dippers. Feel free to expand on your theory of 'restrictive land use policies' - our lot is 2,549 sq ft. Our block has 25 units on the length of 260 feet.

I didn't expect such a partisan answer especially since I'm not a Dipper myself, though I'm sure the PC's are going to clean this problem up in no time, with tax credits for everyone. They're going to be soo different then the previous center-right Liberal government.

If it is the area that I'm thinking, the street grid and land-use patterns there predate most MPS's. Not really sure it's the best example of current land use patterns. Those older patterns were more dense then most single detached neighborhoods today though one medium sized building on a fraction of the land would achieve the same level of density.
I'm sure the lack of supply had nothing to do with that increase in value. Markets never go up when supply is limited by restrictive land use policies, especially in one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

[TheNovaScotian]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Supply issues are just one component of a complex problem. Those people shooting/smoking dangerous drugs like meth and crack in their tent communities are unlikely to be buying a new home regardless of how "affordable" it may be. They need to be institutionalized and treated.

Then there are others who indeed got caught up in the increase in housing costs and lost their apartments. But what drove that increase? Huge federal injections of cash into the money supply that overstimulated the economy. Relaxed controls on immigration that increased demand for housing, and which depending on the circumstances, the costs of which are footed for several years by the Feds. Lots of conversions to AirBnBs which are largely uncontrolled by any govt. Increases in rents for newer properties convinced longtime landlords to invest in their older properties to make them more competitive with resultant rent increases. Offshore money being pumped into Canadian real estate which again is largely uncontrolled by the Feds. That list is just scratching the surface.

If we slow immigration, we loose ground in the battle to become a market economy instead of one focused on tertiary industries. This is the key to Canada's long term economic growth otherwise in the near future we will be bumped down the list until we've become irrelevant to have at global discussions. Since we know the amount we're receiving, we should ensure at least that much housing supply hits the market annually to offset the impact of their arrival.

Low interest rates and quantitative easing were around before this Federal government came in to power. Foreign ownership is shown to be contributing factor, the effect of the tax on them has shown its not a key driver of home prices as Vancouver's market is red-hot with a tax in place.

I think the politically inconvenient fact is, that cities and towns around Canada need a massive influx of housing but no one knows where to put it.
We can do what many countries are doing and build whole new cities like Jedda, Abuja, Cairo or Singapore out in the woods somewhere. I'm more for vertical growth but at this point I'd take what we can get.

I agree on the AirBnB's, those need to be regulated. I've refused to use them on vacation to my wallets dismay, standing for something usually has a cost. The issue with these older buildings being "fixed up" and charge market rates is that they aren't worth it. They can get that much because of lack of a better option, if we had other new options those older ones would fall back to the middle of the pack quickly.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Since we're already off on a tangent, I'll toss in my 2 cents worth (or five cents in non-digital currency):

First off, I agree that more housing should be built to change the supply/demand ratio such that more housing is available to all, and at affordable price points. I do wonder, though, if any supply increase that is less than a glut will actually move prices downward, since the market has virtually accepted the current price points, so the business case for decreasing rent would take a massive increase in supply to motivate landlords to move pricing downward to compete for renters. IMHO.

Secondly, every time I see the argument that the only way to maintain our economy is by increasing the population, I ask myself the question... to what end? For perspective, in my lifetime I've watched the world's population more than double, and yet we're still saying that we need to increase our population to keep our economy going. At what point do we say enough is enough? The inconvenient fact is that climate change is occurring, whether we want to notice it or not, and increasing populations only exacerbate the problem by creating more people to harm the environment.

Please understand, this isn't a comment about immigration, it's about the concept of growth economy and whether we should be really looking inward and thinking about what is the best for our country (and the world) for the future. Of course I don't live in a bubble and I realize that we don't have any ability to change this course, but I can't help but wonder why the smartest people in the world can't quite seem to figure it out...

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

If we slow immigration, we loose ground in the battle to become a market economy instead of one focused on tertiary industries. This is the key to Canada's long term economic growth otherwise in the near future we will be bumped down the list until we've become irrelevant to have at global discussions. Since we know the amount we're receiving, we should ensure at least that much housing supply hits the market annually to offset the impact of their arrival.

IMHO Nationalism is never a good excuse for anything, whether it’s welfare or the economy. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I thought we’ve lived in a “market economy” for quite some time. My impression is that immigration is simply a matter of avoiding a Japanese-styled demographic collapse and having our retirements paid for.

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

I think the politically inconvenient fact is, that cities and towns around Canada need a massive influx of housing but no one knows where to put it.
We can do what many countries are doing and build whole new cities like Jedda, Abuja, Cairo or Singapore out in the woods somewhere. I'm more for vertical growth but at this point I'd take what we can get.

Being a RA for a federally-funded project keeping tabs on migration to mid-sized cities, I feel qualified to say this solution is in fact part of the problem for Halifax. For many in the GTA places like Halifax are the “whole new” cities. This is not a pandemic-induced phenomenon, there has been a constant outmigration from Toronto to mid-sized cities for decades. While the pandemic did cause a surge in outmigration, many of those who moved in fact planned to do so for many years.

Your comments on urban form do hold some relevance to differences in taste: in Hamilton, those moving from Downtown Toronto preferred urbanized parts mimicking their former homes while those coming from GTA suburbs would prefer Hamilton’s suburbs. I am very much opposed to settling on a specific urban form (tall & slim vs mid-rises replicating European streets, yadayada…) because it kills the urge to dream. Very much in favour of density, but let’s be creative about how we get there.

Singapore could actually be a great model, not owing to its status as a relatively new city but strictly because of local policy i.e. social ownership. New supply is an obvious requirement, but the benefits are moot without considering the question of “for whom”. Singapore is apparently a great place to do business too! A respectable port city by all standards.

Jeddah is a horrible example in my opinion, it’s the Saudi’s desperate attempt at weaning itself off oil. It’s a mere caricature of Dubai, which in itself is a vanity project representing all the problems with housing and society in general.

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

I agree on the AirBnB's, those need to be regulated. I've refused to use them on vacation to my wallets dismay, standing for something usually has a cost. The issue with these older buildings being "fixed up" and charge market rates is that they aren't worth it. They can get that much because of lack of a better option, if we had other new options those older ones would fall back to the middle of the pack quickly.

Agreed 100%, it raises the rent gap for no good reason. It’s funny to see hotels converted into homeless shelters while apartments get turned into hotels.

[mleblanc]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

It’s funny to see hotels converted into homeless shelters while apartments get turned into hotels.

I didn't know it was possible, but you just summed up my entire confusion on the topic into a single sentence Well said!

[Kittle]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Supply issues are just one component of a complex problem. Those people shooting/smoking dangerous drugs like meth and crack in their tent communities are unlikely to be buying a new home regardless of how "affordable" it may be. They need to be institutionalized and treated.

Then there are others who indeed got caught up in the increase in housing costs and lost their apartments. But what drove that increase? Huge federal injections of cash into the money supply that overstimulated the economy. Relaxed controls on immigration that increased demand for housing, and which depending on the circumstances, the costs of which are footed for several years by the Feds. Lots of conversions to AirBnBs which are largely uncontrolled by any govt. Increases in rents for newer properties convinced longtime landlords to invest in their older properties to make them more competitive with resultant rent increases. Offshore money being pumped into Canadian real estate which again is largely uncontrolled by the Feds. That list is just scratching the surface.

I'd say you hit the nail on the head. While there are certainly a few outliers, the majority of those in tent cities aren't there because of a lack of affordable housing. Seattle is a great example of this. Their housing prices have skyrocketed and become unaffordable to many (well beyond what we see here), and they've experienced a boom in population. They chose a laissez-faire approach to homelessness and tent cities, and it has gotten to the point that people struggling with addiction will come from out of state to live in what they dub "Freeattle". An FBI agent complied a list of the 100 worst frequent offenders (by number of arrests). Out of those 100 people...100% showed signs of addiction, and 100% were homeless.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Kittle

the majority of those in tent cities aren't there because of a lack of affordable housing.

…really?

[Dmajackson]

The Zion (2050 Gottingen)


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

North End Animal Hospital


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

And there is a new mural at Agricola Street & Willow Street


Halifax Developments Blog (Photo by David Jackson)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Kittle

An FBI agent complied a list of the 100 worst frequent offenders (by number of arrests). Out of those 100 people...100% showed signs of addiction, and 100% were homeless.

Yet if the US had sane drug and mental health policies and a sane criminal justice system many of those people could live normal lives with jobs and stable housing, maybe while using drugs or maybe not.

I agree it's complicated and it is possible to cause more people to live in tent cities by incentivizing that behaviour. I believe this is an area where there are many different things going wrong (housing policy, drug policy, policing, misguided activism, poor communication). The ideal path in Halifax includes neither building huts in downtown parks nor pepper spraying 10 year olds.

One point that stands out to me is I think the root problems are often far removed from the effects of people not having housing, and often they don't "feel" bad or related. For example HRM delaying building permits for a few months because they say they are swamped. You slow down some couple building a house by 2 years and they stay in their apartment 2 years longer, then somebody else doesn't get to move in there...

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by TheNovaScotian

I'm sure the lack of supply had nothing to do with that increase in value. Markets never go up when supply is limited by restrictive land use policies, especially in one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

Location was responsible for almost all of the price increase before 2018. We rented in Woodlawn until we decided we needed our own home. Woodlawn was too expensive so we ended up in a home built in 1917. Over time the area became more desirable because of LOCATION, although some home buyers were reluctant to send their kids to the school and the precious kids were put on a bus to French Immersion or sent out of boundary. The location certainly provides a premium to sellers and the about to be built bikeway will lead to an increase to the area. Very few families want to live in a high rise and the reasons are obvious. Dartmouth had very few restrictions in land use because almost every developer got what he wanted. Except for Lindelll Smith all the councillors within the Centre plan live in a detached home.

[Keith P.]

I find it hard to believe the bikeway will add to the value of homes on that poor unfortunate street.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I find it hard to believe the bikeway will add to the value of homes on that poor unfortunate street.

Seconded. Mind you, I think it probably won't devalue them either.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Seconded. Mind you, I think it probably won't devalue them either.

It is a bikeway, not a bike lane. Thanks to COVID traffic has significantly declined, traffic also declined during and after the repaving of the MacDonald bridge. Younger people with kids think its is too busy, yet there are very few accidents. 'Speeding' is one of those urban myths but you'll always hear councillors banging on about 'speed' and 'dangerous road'. At one time there were 12 kids on our side of the block - now down to 3. On the next block a home listed for $340,000 sold in 12 days for $515,000 - doubt we would get that price; 3 years ago an appraiser estimated a max of $300,000 for a home that cost us $45,000 over 38 years ago - which represents a compound annual return of a little over 5%..... and does not include maintenance and repair costs; all of which wipes out the notion that older home sellers are making out like bandits.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

It is a bikeway, not a bike lane. Thanks to COVID traffic has significantly declined, traffic also declined during and after the repaving of the MacDonald bridge. Younger people with kids think its is too busy, yet there are very few accidents. 'Speeding' is one of those urban myths but you'll always hear councillors banging on about 'speed' and 'dangerous road'. At one time there were 12 kids on our side of the block - now down to 3.

Speeding, stunting and heavy traffic are the constant bogeymen trotted out by those in the planning professions to demonize motorists and justify downgrading streets in favor of bike lanes or, as was the case in last year's HRM lunacy, "safe streets for all", so they could be used for walking, skateboarding, rollerblading and god knows what else while cars and trucks continued to try to use them for their intended purpose. I am glad that it seems to have been largely missed this year. However, the bikeways that Austin has pushed still eliminates parking on one side of the street so good luck having visitors or getting deliveries or tradesmen accommodated.

On the next block a home listed for $340,000 sold in 12 days for $515,000 - doubt we would get that price; 3 years ago an appraiser estimated a max of $300,000 for a home that cost us $45,000 over 38 years ago - which represents a compound annual return of a little over 5%..... and does not include maintenance and repair costs; all of which wipes out the notion that older home sellers are making out like bandits.

Well, if you impute the rent you did not pay over those 30 years of occupancy you did not make out too badly.

[OldDartmouthMark]

.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, if you impute the rent you did not pay over those 30 years of occupancy you did not make out too badly.

The mortgage,utilities,insurance, property taxes, maintenance are not included in the calculation.
On the upside, we now live for $9,000 a year but need new windows and other upgrades. The next owner can do all that. Cheap money is driving prices and we have a generation of house hunters who have heart flutters when they see a house for sale on 'the flower'streets. You won't see 13.75% mortgages again.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Speeding, stunting and heavy traffic are the constant bogeymen trotted out by those in the planning professions to demonize motorists and justify downgrading streets in favor of bike lanes or, as was the case in last year's HRM lunacy, "safe streets for all", so they could be used for walking, skateboarding, rollerblading and god knows what else while cars and trucks continued to try to use them for their intended purpose.

I'm tired of the rhetoric as well. Society in general is getting weird. While I'm generally in favour of better access for cyclists and 100% in favour of making the roads safer for them, when reasoning that borders on the ridiculous is used to justify the latest greatest project (like the Macdonald bridge flyover, for example), I get turned off. When I hear things that amount to "let's make life more difficult for the masses so they will be forced into following our agenda", I get turned off even more.

Frankly, as a society we seem to be pushed more into being followers of BS from people who like to use fear from over-inflated risks as reasoning to force us into a mindset that sometimes defies logic or reason. In general, it is starting to feel like we are less 'free' to follow our own thoughts than we've ever been in the past, and the concept of risk has been amplified to a point that it's actually starting to cause a decrease in quality of life for many.

It will be interesting to see if this trend continues once Covid fatigue wears off.