Housing Bubble II: The Quest To Build Enough Homes Where People Actually Need Them

[casper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I agree that stating spending cuts are "easier said than done" which is why we have to refocus where we are spending the money. Excess civil servants in the tens of thousands is an obvious first start but we also must make decisions on who actually benefits from our gov't services.

The latter means that any gov't services {except for EMERGENCY healthcare & children's education} should be a completely disenfranchised to any person who is not a Canadian citizen ie student/TFW/sponsored family member. Refugees due to their very nature should get gov't services for only 6 months which should be the max time it takes to adjudicate their case with no appeals. If denied they should be given a one-way ticket home and 2 weeks to leave the country.

Landed immigrants should have to pay 50% of their medical bills {except emergencies} and not be eligible for any gov't welfare programs for more than 6 months including housing. No OAS. Obviously once they become Canadians they enjoy all benefits.

I shutter to think how much our federal/provincial gov't spend in healthcare/social services/education/housing every year on non-citizens and, except for the exemptions I noted above, it should be made very clear to all people entering the country that you must pay your way and if you can't then good luck and goodbye.

Thankfully that regressive view of how to treat people does not reflect Canadian values and how as a society we function.

While I fully support the view we want to integrate newcomers into Canada and our economy as fast as possible, we need to to treat people with dignity and respect. That includes ensuring they have access to medical care and the necessities of life.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What makes you think stagflation is happening? Inflation is very close to BOC target levels and housing increases (thanks to rate increases) are the major component now. Once that lag is over we should be right around 2%.

We are still at 3% inflation and have been in a per capita recession for months now. As soon as layoffs start the central bank is going to have to decide if they want to hold rates and keep 2% inflation (and accept more layoffs), or cut rates to avoid further short term economic pain and accept the higher inflation that will follow afterwards. That is the position we are in right now.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Build.It

We are still at 3% inflation and have been in a per capita recession for months now. As soon as layoffs start the central bank is going to have to decide if they want to hold rates and keep 2% inflation (and accept more layoffs), or cut rates to avoid further short term economic pain and accept the higher inflation that will follow afterwards. That is the position we are in right now.

The Bank of Canada is not the US Fed. There is no decision, the Bank of Canada will aim for 2% inflation.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Build.It

The goal should be to live within our means as a society. Getting there is going to be painful for many, but that's the price of decades of excessive spending. Eventually the debt comes due. The longer this continues, the more painful it'll be to get back to responsible finances. The government can either take action now, or wait until they are forced into austerity.

The goal should be to live within our means when buying property. Getting there is going to be painful for many recent purchasers, but that's the price of decades of excessive lending. Eventually the debt comes due. The longer this continues, the more painful it'll be to get back to responsible home prices. And good luck to any government that actually limits secondary lenders, and double or triple mortgages, or lenders advancing loans based on many multiples of earnings.

[casper]

Some more locally controlled social housing

B.C. asks Indigenous organizations for proposals for over 1,000 affordable homes

The Government of British Columbia is inviting Indigenous housing providers, First Nations and other Indigenous organizations to submit proposals for the Building BC: Indigenous Housing Fund (IHF).

The fund provides approximately $1.8 billion to build 500 new homes for Indigenous families, individuals and Elders, on and off reserve. To date, more than 1,500 IHF homes are open or underway throughout B.C., a release stated.

Projects totalling approximately 1,200 units are expected to be announced by summer 2024.

Source: https://canada.constructconnect.com/...fordable-homes

This is all positive. The feds running some programs. The province running others, like this one. Each targeting different at risk groups. They key thing is just to create more housing units in general.

[theman23]

^Why bother even posting that? 500 new homes won't even cause a rounding error. Your constant declaration of victory over these meaningless announcements is akin to declaring to a band of thirsty desert tribesmen that their salvation is coming in the form of a single drop of water.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by theman23

^Why bother even posting that? 500 new homes won't even cause a rounding error. Your constant declaration of victory over these meaningless announcements is akin to declaring to a band of thirsty desert tribesmen that their salvation is coming in the form of a single drop of water.

Lol yup.

1,200 units - woohoo - congrats, that’s enough supply to house 1/2 of the people that moved to Canada Today! I just know we’ll make up for that tomorrow when we need another 2,500 units built, plus the 1,300 needed for today.. then we’ll get those 2,500 units announced every day thereafter…

[logan5]

Well wtf are you suppose to post in this thread then? It's a bit of thread content that shouldn't get a normal person all worked up.

[savevp]

Worth a glance, the BBC running a story about Australia's housing crisis. Housing costs nationally are at 118 times the average disposable income. Not sure if we have the same metric here but I'd be intrigued to contrast.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-67723760

Australia hasn't had nearly the level of self-induced pain from our obsession with limitless non permanent resident immigration, but still:

The government is pulling other levers too: it announced earlier this month that it would halve Australia's immigration intake and triple the fees for foreign homebuyers, both things they argue should help ease the strain.


Certainly taking more concrete steps than we seem to be at this time on the immigration side, but both sides of Australia's political spectrum seem unwilling to tackle the investment-ification of property that's made the older generations rich. Seems New Zealand is having similar issues. So we're not alone with these problems - our peer nations are with us as much as ever. Food for thought.

[casper]

Originally Posted by theman23

^Why bother even posting that? 500 new homes won't even cause a rounding error. Your constant declaration of victory over these meaningless announcements is akin to declaring to a band of thirsty desert tribesmen that their salvation is coming in the form of a single drop of water.

Think of it as an example. One of many projects/programs will create housing for just over 3,000 people. One of many different programs.

[theman23]

It's akin to posting in the weather thread every time the temperature fluctuates a single degree. To be honest, when you compare the magnitude of the numbers involved its probably even less significant. The 1,200 units they expect to be announced by next summer will be outdone 100 times over by BC's population growth between now and then, and who knows by how many times by the time they're actually built. With the housing in question being restricted to a special interest group and with the numbers being built, it will have no impact whatsoever on the housing market. It's not "all good news" but rather "all non news".

Originally Posted by casper

Think of it as an example. One of many projects/programs will create housing for just over 3,000 people. One of many different programs.

You post these examples, what - every 3 or 4 weeks? They're usually in the order of a few hundred to a thousand units. Canada's population grows by about 150,000 people between every one of your examples.

What exactly are they an example of? Political gas lighting? I'm not sure what purpose you're trying to serve by reposting these here.

Well actually, I do.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by theman23

It's akin to posting in the weather thread every time the temperature fluctuates a single degree....

If it doesn't interest you, just read on past it. Those of us who are interested will read it and those who aren't, won't.

[theman23]

I'm pointing out the insignificance of the announcement, not tying to patrol this thread. He can post whatever he wants. I actually find it very interesting, hence my reply.

At current pace, BC's population is going to be at 5.8 million by summer of 2024. That's about 200,000 more than now. This announcement of a possible future announcement may one day announce enough housing for about 0.6% of that population growth. When they do eventually announce the actual announcement instead of just announcing the possibility of a future announcement, I'm sure they'll release another press release announcing the good news.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by logan5

Well wtf are you suppose to post in this thread then? It's a bit of thread content that shouldn't get a normal person all worked up.

It’s the angle (“this is positive news!”) that gets people worked up.

To reuse a former example:

Putting a band-aid on a scratch: cool, legitimate, doesn’t get people worked up;

Putting a band-aid on a scratch while the patient is dying from bleeding from gunshot wounds, and pointing to the band-aid and declaring “this is positive!!!” while doing nothing about the gunshot wounds: will be denounced as the gaslighting that it is and will get people worked up.

[Xelebes]

The big questions ought to be whether or not these programs are replicable if not scalable. Reserves are federal jurisdiction. Why is the province leading the charge?

[casper]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

The big questions ought to be whether or not these programs are replicable if not scalable. Reserves are federal jurisdiction. Why is the province leading the charge?

There is a need. It is as simple as that.

The more complex answer is some of the housing societies that operate indigenous off-reserve have been provincially supported for years. They are starting to do on-reserve and are going to the same place for funding.

Originally Posted by lio45

It’s the angle (“this is positive news!”) that gets people worked up.

To reuse a former example:

Putting a band-aid on a scratch: cool, legitimate, doesn’t get people worked up;

Putting a band-aid on a scratch while the patient is dying from bleeding from gunshot wounds, and pointing to the band-aid and declaring “this is positive!!!” while doing nothing about the gunshot wounds: will be denounced as the gaslighting that it is and will get people worked up.

Indigenous populations are growing. Many want to stay on reserve. I view that as a positive. I think it would be a major problem to try to restrict or limit that in any way.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

The big questions ought to be whether or not these programs are replicable if not scalable. Reserves are federal jurisdiction. Why is the province leading the charge?

The province is contributing funds for projects that are both on, and off reserve. The on reserve schemes are generally smaller, and the off reserve projects usually have multiple sources of funding. One example currently under construction is 52 East Hastings. It's replacing a run-down former SRO with over 100 units of affordable rental and supportive housing, as well as a health centre. There are two indigenous agencies developing it, and the funding is coming from federal, provincial and municipal sources.

There are a number of projects like this in Downtown Vancouver, and on a smaller scale in other cities. Indigenous individuals experience homelessness at a higher rate than the general population.

Other provinces could create a similar program, and there are examples like the funding for The Bay conversion by the Southern Chiefs’ Organization to affordable housing in Winnipeg getting $35m from the province, and $65m from federal sources.

[Build.It]

$1.8B for 3500 units on a reserve? That works out to $514K per unit. Seems a bit much.

The first 1750 units cost $550M, or $314K per unit.

The next 1750 units cost $1.3B, or $742K per unit, for "affordable" housing.

Sounds fishy.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Build.It

$1.8B for 3500 units on a reserve? That works out to $514K per unit. Seems a bit much.

The first 1750 units cost $550M, or $314K per unit.

The next 1750 units cost $1.3B, or $742K per unit, for "affordable" housing.

Sounds fishy.

The funding announced five years ago, and the new funding has helped develop projects on, and off reserve. The earlier projects sometimes provided funding in projects with multiple sources (see post above), so they didn't cost an average of $314k per unit to build, and the future projects may not cost $742k per unit each. It's a more realistic number for current construction costs in BC, and if there are other funds provided for projects by other levels of government, it could fund more than 1,500 units.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

We are still at 3% inflation and have been in a per capita recession for months now. As soon as layoffs start the central bank is going to have to decide if they want to hold rates and keep 2% inflation (and accept more layoffs), or cut rates to avoid further short term economic pain and accept the higher inflation that will follow afterwards. That is the position we are in right now.

So we are not in stagflation today. One piece of that is unlikely to happen (inflation seems tamed), and the other is questionable (unemployment).

Lots of fear and doubt running around. The US looks ready to cut rates in 2024 while having avoided any semblance of a recession.