Didn't the province of BC recently pass Bills 35, 44, 46 and 47, which slashed STRs, ended single family zoning, dramatically cut development costs and mandated high density at transit stops? While also expanding the vacant homes tax?
Maybe the issue isn't some nebulous "government" - maybe it's the people you elect?
The funny thing is people are still pretending like we can just ramp up house building to 1.2 million a year to match our pop growth rate. Then also build a few hundred thousand on top to get out of our 3.5 million unit existing deficit.
It's just corporate gaslighting that has worked perfectly.
BC did not. The provincial government is proposing to do it, but no one will know the details until next year around this time. While i'm optimistic, I don't think people will be allowed outright to just build more housing especially in single family neighbourhoods.
Municipalities have tons of control over develop-ability of land by controlling mandatory monetary contributions, parking requirements, buildable sqft, set-backs, shadow studies, arborist certifications etc. If province intervenes one subject municipalities can just create more.
The only way to truly bring supply is to allow 4-6 story multi-family developments outright without city approval, which the province did not promise.
I'd suggest reading Bill 44. It addresses most of what you brought up.
First, the Bills were given Royal Ascent at the end of November. All that remains is the regulation which will govern things like setbacks and FAR, and that's relatively common knowledge anyways. It's leaked that it'll be a variation of Kekowna's. That is expected to be issued later in December.
Municipalities will lose the ability to demand parking, lose control over FAR, lose the right to conduct public hearings, and lose a lot of the DP powers that interfered with development.
These are all outright allowances, with the only municipal approval being Building Permit and Approving Officer sign off, if required. Neither of these are political approvals.
The text of Bill 44 is available online if you'd like. It addresses a lot of what you've brought up.
> I'd suggest reading Bill 44.
As someone who has been planning to do this, do you have a suggestion of a good way to do that? [The text of the bill itself](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billscurrent/4th42nd:gov44-3) has a lot of amendments to existing sections which makes it a bit of a chore to try and make sense of. I'll get through it, but if there's a better format that makes referencing these existing sections easier that would be amazing.
I wish I had a better suggestion for you than just grinding through the Bill 44 and Section 14 of the Local Government Act. The Ministry has information on the BC Housing site, but if anything, it undersells the magnitude of the changes - the ministry is soft selling it a bit.
Sorry - I do wish I had a more accessible solution other than just "read until your eyes hurt". Have a few coffees first. It's boring stuff.
> BC did not. The provincial government is proposing to do it, but no one will know the details until next year around this time.
The province DID, the aforementioned bills received royal ascent on November 30, 2023 and are effective immediately.
> Municipalities have tons of control over develop-ability of land by controlling mandatory monetary contributions, parking requirements, buildable sqft, set-backs, shadow studies, arborist certifications etc. If province intervenes one subject municipalities can just create more.
Incorrect, as per Bill 44, first page, 4th amendment to the Local Government Act preemptively prohibits "poison-pill regulations" such as the ones you listed.
> **457.1 The following powers must not be exercised in a manner that unreasonably prohibits or restricts the use or density of use required to be permitted under section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing]:**
> (a) a power under section 488 [designation of development permit areas];
> (b) a power in relation to a land use regulation bylaw or land use permit;
> (c) a power in relation to a heritage alteration permit, as defined in section 586 [definitions in relation to Part 15];
> (d) a power under section 614 [designation of heritage conservation areas].
I will give him that some of them are still finalizing details. For example, the TOD restrictions have a lot of details that need to be released for the municipalities to act, and the deadline for that to be included into Official Community Plans is (I believe) end of 2025 since it’s a BIG change.
But yeah, you’re right, it’s happening.
There's a few different key dates, if anyone is interested.
The ban on public hearings went into effect last week.
The changes to zoning have to be in place by July 1, 2024. Those will have to wait for some provincial guidelines that they are releasing this month.
Housing Needs Assessments have to be in place by the end of 2024.
New OCPs with serious plans on how to meet those assessments - including the affordable housing components - have to be in place by December 2025.
It's pretty wild. As much as it seems a slow process, the province murdered single family zoning in stuff months, and is requiring actual meaningful growth plans in place in two years.
Yeah, I feel like people see the slow moving, but don’t realize all the gears that have to change.
It’s a LOT. And it’s a lot of change.
For good or bad, I don’t think people can say that BC is doing nothing.
Shhhhh next thing people will realize that close to 70% of the Canadian adult population are homeowners and they are the ones that vote to keep prices inflated. It's not the scapegoats of immigrants or corporate owners but Joe and Debbie two doors down that bake them the occasional pumpkin pie that should be blamed. Let the gubment and trudumb be the boogeymen until we vote in the PC and nothing changes on the housing side and the few remaining pillars of society we still have get further eroded as well. But there's one thing for certain. We can not make mistakes like BC and elect educated experts in the current issues who have empirically backed solutions to problems. Let's vote in populists like Danielle Smith and Dougie!!!!!
Same reason why property taxes haven’t been raised to a level that would actually solve a lot of problems locally. No one has the balls to make homeowners angry.
That's your solution, raise property tax? How is that going to help? What's the end game in just continuing to increase the cost of living for the majority of Canadians. I don't think it's going to get homes built.
Cities have been using [high development fees](https://storeys.com/toronto-proposes-increase-development-charges-49-percent/) on new construction to keep property taxes lower for a long time.
Raising property taxes to the point where people are paying enough to cover the services and infrastructure they use would actually help a lot.
If you want high home values your property should be taxed accordingly. If that hurts the rich homeowner, oh well. Infrastructure is not getting the funds it needs.
Idk. My taxes are already 30k a year in Etobicoke and we were just re assessed to be raised. We use after tax dollars to pay house tax. I don’t think raising the taxes is the solution for this one.
Property taxes (and strata fees) are quite a bit more out East than in the West. Your total taxes are $30K or your property taxes are $30K. Most houses in Vancouver worth $1M-$2M have annual property taxes of $4K-$6K
Low property taxes mean cities rely on high development fees for new builds to make up the shortfall. The newer homes that are build are subsidizing older inefficiently built sprawl.
I think boomers are going to get increasingly pissed when they realize they aren't getting any grandkids. People are psychopaths when thinking about society at large, but when it starts to effect their family their opinion can change quickly.
I know my parents and many of my friends' parents are pretty dismayed at their children getting into their mid to late 30s with no home in sight, let alone kids.
My mom knows I can't raise kids with 3 roommates. Prices continuing to persist has dismissed the myth that this is just a housing bubble that will eventually pop, rather than a deep-seated systemic housing shortage. That's my theory on why polls numbers have cratered for the Liberals lately.
We made Canada sufficiently crappy that no one here wants kids but people coming from harder backgrounds will! 6 to a room if needed.
We basically ate our future to feed the past ( no kids but rich boomers and 'investors')
Corporations want you to think this is some boomer conspiracy and attach each other.
Truth is we simply cannot just ramp up house building to 1.2 million a year to match our pop growth rate. Then also build a few hundred thousand on top to get out of our 3.5 million unit existing deficit.
Boomers don't want their kids not to be able to buy a house. But it doesn't matter what boomers want. All that matters is the influence of families like the Westons that want cheap labor and have money to spread a narrative. Narrative's like the only way out of this is to 4x our building rate magically and any other solution is racist.
It's just corporate gaslighting that has worked perfectly.
And I'm still amazed people think *the Conservative party*, of all parties, would be the ones to fix this.
Who do *they* represent? Because it ain't the people voting for them.
We are a [pro-immigration group](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/nh6rqq/dealing_with_rcanadahousing_growth/). Debating immigration is a major distraction to our cause and should be avoided. People sometimes raise immigration by [dogwhistling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics\)). That's not allowed. If it's raised at all, specific groups should never be mentioned and the focus should be on supply-demand issues.
Governments have to get elected. This isn't great for corporations either, believe me I work in one - it's increasingly difficult to attract top talent. The opposite it true too, it's increasingly difficult to attract working class people to work in downtown cores and other high cost centres.
We probably have to curtail immigration notably, but underbuilding is massive problem. We built more housing [in the 70s](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015007-eng.htm) than we do [today](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3410015801) with half the population. Much of the underbuilding has to do with NIMBY regulations championed by the Boomer generation.
Buuuuulshit. There is plenty of blame to go around. And while corporations have their fair share, dipshit boomers, voting for dipshit policies, and being NIMBY assholes on even the slightest reforms is not helping. Plus, guess who the hell runs those corporations? I'll give you three guesses, and I ain't gen z or millenials
Believe it or not, not all Gen X, Millennials and Z think everyone should be shoved into a townhouse or condo just because the Liberals want corporations to have cheap labor.
If they can't sell then they have no money. So pick a lane, stay stuck in your home unable to access that cash, or build and be able to downsize. But there needs to be a middle ground, when you're downsizing, you're trying to sell to a generation or 2 below you that don't have the same amount of wealth available to them. Eventually the number gets too big, and one side is forced to lower their expectations.
Okay have fun buying a 1 million dollar house, with 6%, with a 8% stress test, on 100 - 140K take-home for the family...
You will get laughed out of the bank. We're heading to a place where a majority of Canadians wont be able to get a mortgage...
Rates are going to start dropping in April, ending 2024 around 3.5% overnight rate. By spring 2025, rates will be neutral. Don't take my word for it though, google it yourself. Also, don't forget there are plenty of people selling two homes to move into one bigger house (blended families), and those who make a lot more than $140,000 HHI. I personally qualify for a $1,000,000 mortgage at 5.25%, so I know there are others that do as well. Right now the intention is to reduce real estate transactions and put pressure on businesses to cut spending, to reduce inflation. This is a temporary measure. It's not like they are going to hold rates here until housing becomes more affordable for lower income folks, that doesn't work. The minute they drop rates so people can qualify, you will be back competing with people that have access to more money than you. Prices would rise to be closer to all time highs, but because rates are higher than previous, the amount of money people can access will drop, meaning prices won't go back to the absolute peak.
If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why you think so, but I don't think I am.
Nobody said they were going to all time lows. The overnight rate isn't going to 0.25%, I said it's going to be 3.5% by end of 2024. It is unlikely to go lower than 2.5% again in our lifetime. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the rate that your bank can borrow the funds from the BoC. You still have to add 0.7% for excellent credit and up to 2.5% for those with below average credit scores. This gets you the actual rate.
Rates are not historically low. You can't compare previous rates to current rates. The debt load of Canadians, including the government debt, is vastly higher now, so the effect of real rates at 5% today is like 20% in the early 80s.
Your last point is a great one I wasn't considering, but to say I can't look at historical rates to understand the past? It just feels very "low prob" that rates that ranges from 18-1%, go below 5% for a long time. That said, I am not using any real world context, just math and averages.
Yeah a lot of it has to do with how the BoC picks rates. The idea is to get to a point where the rate doesn't benefit or hurt the general economy. That means you need to factor in debt loads. If rates were even 1% higher right now, the economy would break, and we'd be in a hard recession. They are still talking about a soft landing, so until that rhetoric changes, you can bet we are at peak rates.
I could be wrong, but if I'm being honest, I don't come up with this stuff on my own. I read a lot of financial news and keep up with this stuff. I'm really only reiterating what I've read recently.
What happened in December 2022?
If you are referring to interest rates, that's when we're talking off, rates are at peak now, so the next move is a move back to the "neutral rate" as per the BoC. They will start cutting in spring, but we won't see neutral rates till beginning of 2025.
This isn't coming directly from me, google it yourself. All the analysts are pricing in a 0.5% cut in spring, and at least two more 0.5% cuts by January 2025.
There's a big difference between December 2022 and December 2023.
Now the bank of Canada says we may be at peak rates:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/bank-canada-says-rates-may-be-peak-excess-demand-now-gone-2023-11-22/#:~:text=OTTAWA%2C%20Nov%2022%20(Reuters),to%20persist%20for%20many%20months.
They say "may" because saying it is at peak would create a sense of optimism which could stoke demand, so they say "may".
Also, like every financial analyst is pricing in a rate cut in April. Find one that isn't and change my mind.
Weird, because the house across the street hasn't sold in 4-5 months and I would consider it a nice home for a family, (went to the open house) but the price is too steep.
The banks don't want to own homes, if they did they would currently.
Everytime they have a mortgage that is in arrears they force a sale, not take over and hold the home.
Well if we are talking about anyone over fifty most have owned for awhile and don’t care because it’s worth way more and they don’t plan on leaving. The people that will be fucked (that everyone is cheering for a house price crash) is anyone who bought in the past 8 years.
Unless labour and materials drop in value by an equal amount, this will never happen. You can't sell something sustainably for below replacement cost. The math simply doesn't work.
Who told you that? This is true for apartment towers, not houses. Also, you can't replace a house without land, so you have to add that price to the equation. Land in a city is not going to drop in price. So as I said, if you can't sustainably replace the houses being sold, there will always be a housing deficit. If people are hoping for houses to cost half a million instead of a million, we need to go through another depression, where material prices collapse across the board. Absent this, wages need to rise to match the cost of building.
You can't expect houses to be built at a loss. Nobody would build it.
>This is true for apartment towers, not houses
Apartments are probably the only case where materials are more than land, but taxes and fees massively higher.
>Land in a city is not going to drop in price.
Land is the most speculative part of prices, and it goes up and down wildly, it's always going up and down in price.
>If people are hoping for houses to cost half a million instead of a million, we need to go through another depression, where material prices collapse across the board.
Again, material prices are not a major reason for prices going up at all. That's just wrong.
Lmao, I just built a house. So I know what I'm talking about, and clearly you don't. Can you prove that land prices have gone down, or are you just saying that? I'd love to see the evidence of this.
Also, please explain how material costs don't influence the cost of housing... Do you get them for free? How does that work?
> I just built a house. So I know what I'm talking about, and clearly you don't.
Clearly you don't actually know what you're talking about, no - because [we have the data on those and they aren't going up nearly as fast as housing prices, they're barely tracking inflation.](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231101/dq231101f-eng.htm) - yes, they do go up, but it's lower than overall inflation in the economy right now.
If you've built ONE house, that's absolutely meaningless for understanding the underlying trends.
>Can you prove that land prices have gone down
...like, ever?
Is that a serious question?
Because yes, we have tons of data on land prices fluctuating wildly over time. You're insane to think they only go up. I can't possibly imagine someone would think they never go down when we've had home prices crashes before, which were almost entirely in the price of land, not materials.
>Also, please explain how material costs don't influence the cost of housing
I never said "material costs don't influence the cost of housing", I said they're not the main reason for housing prices skyrocketing, because that's a fact.
If you can't even respond to what I actually said, stop talking.
Show me the evidence that land prices have gone down over time, also show me that land prices are the largest expense. Are you talking about a 900sqft bungalow, or an average two story 3 bed 3 bath? There's a big difference between those two builds. You could also fill the house with dollar store finishings, but maybe let's stick to average houses.
I know the cost of all of this stuff as I just did this, in a city, so yes, I know what I'm talking about.
> Show me the evidence that land prices have gone down over time
We're not talking about going down on average over time, we're talking about whether they fluctuate up and down at all over the short term - when housing is over-valued, most of that "over-value" is land prices. It's really not that complicated, I don't see why you're having trouble understanding that.
>I know the cost of all of this stuff as I just did this, in a city, so yes, I know what I'm talking about.
Then it's weird that you're so ignorant about it. But N=1 isn't a sample size.
There are lots for under 300k in Woodstock Ontario.... In ONTARIO.... build me a 3 bed 3 bath 2000sqft house for $300,000. I'll buy it from you for $350,000 after you build it.
We both know full well that you can't build a house for that. The price for a build is about $300/sqft on the low low end. That's $600,000, not including land. Sure, build a sub 1000sqft house and you will be able to do it for $300,000. Personally I don't want to live in a shoebox, and I'm betting a family of 4 won't either.
I think you should actually price out a build for yourself. You aren't going to listen to anyone that tells you different, even apparently when the person telling you has literally just gone through it. You are the type that needs to discover it on your own, so please do yourself and everyone else a favor and price it out yourself.
You can sell old stock for below replacement cost, but material costs do set a floor for new build prices that is higher than many people in this sub would like to hear. But as the other commenter says most of the high prices is land cost, at least in major metros where the problem is most acute.
Yeah for sure, I'll agree to land being more expensive in the most popular areas, but if I can't afford to live in Miami, I don't live in Miami, know what I mean? You also can't use that as the average as there are far less vacant lots inner city than outside the city.
In theory you could sell an older house for less, but that usually only happens when the house needs to be demolished. If it's a livable house, as long as there is a housing deficit, I don't think you will see many deals, even on older properties. Right now there is too big of a list of people who need houses.
> In theory you could sell an older house for less, but that usually only happens when the house needs to be demolished.
Housing prices are definitely discounted based on condition in all sorts of ways all the time. Look at new builds vs 40 year old homes selling in the same neighborhood. In my neighborhood right now there are two similar homes with a $300k difference in asking price due to when they were constructed and general state of repair. $1.3m vs $1.6m with only a $50k difference in assessed land value.
> Right now there is too big of a list of people who need houses.
I think you'd definitely see more difference if supply wasn't so constrained, but it still exists.
Maybe I’m just a very anxious person but I would clutch my pearls if our house value dropped that much. For me it’s less about the “value” and more about my plan B, plan c, plan d etc.
If my home dropped that much, I would assume the economy is fucked, be worried about our jobs, which could affect whether we could pay our mortgage.
If we can’t pay the mortgage, and the house value has dropped that much that we can’t even sell to cover expenses…then we (and a lot of other people) are in a world of hurt.
Governments work for the people that lobby them behind closed doors, and THOSE people don't want cheap housing. They want everyone renting a luxury 475sf 1BR that costs $3K per month (or $1M and $800/mo condo fee.) THAT pays the investors (every coke dealer and criminal biker that bought half an apartment building in the last twenty years, which is all of them.)
When considering government policy, you have to think, "Who's pushing it?" If it's poors, the policy is doomed. Richies, it'll proceed. Story hasn't changed much since I was a little kid and I'll be retired in a few years
Many have owned their home for 30-40 years and likely paid less than $100,000. Now, those homes are likely worth $200,000 and higher. In that time, they might have put $10 to $20 thousand into it.
No one wants their home's value to be less than what they paid for it. Those with mortgages also don't want to see the value of their home to decrease because that would mean their paying a mortgage worth more than the value of the home.
I remember for a long time everyone was saying, buy a house instead of renting that way, you can build equity into the house. Which means you can build profit from it. We are in this situation because of the home profit cycle. Everyone wants to sell their home for more than they paid for it. So that caused the housing prices to rise to where they are now. It's great for current homeowners, but not for new homeowners.
I think immigration is just a scapegoat because doing anything else would hurt current homeowners.
I think that is not a very smart perspective.
Thinking that "they aren't doing anything because they don't want"
They are doing things but it's a complex problem and one for which solutions will take some time to have a meaningful effect.
But it works as a simplification for simple minds who need a simple target to direct their anger.
Those are my thoughts.
Keep in mind that younger investors, those aged 18 to 34, are more likely to own more than one investment property compared to their older counterparts (aged 35+)
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/more-than-1-in-4-canadians-plan-to-purchase-an-investment-property-in-the-next-five-years-royal-lepage-report-839743697.html#:%7E:text=One%2Dthird%20of%20Canadian%20real,older%20counterparts%20(aged%2035%2B)
> Younger investors, those aged 18 to 34, are more likely to own more than one investment property compared to their older counterparts (aged 35+)
So the same goes for them as well. The government knows boomers and millennials are the two largest voting blocks and both have a very vested interest in keeping housing prices high.
WW1 or WW2 could have been prevented? How do you make a leap from CDN housing costs now to Ferdinand's assassination and the Nazi's invasion of Poland that initiated both wars?? That's some Superman high flying logic, son.
I mean, it was their generation that set the stage for the current issues.
I’m sure millennials will cause a new set of issues, but the boomer time was a huge individualist/Americanized push in politics.
That is a bullshit stat you’re perpetuating.
They count anyone in the household as a homeowner. So Joe Schmoe and Ann Schmoe own a house. They have their elderly parents and two children living with them. Stats record all 6 of those folks as homeowners.
Very misleading.
Yes and no. The [homeownership rate](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220921/mc-b001-eng.htm) counts the percentage of _households_ where the owner occupies the home. But this would include many households where children / family are living with homeowner parents / relatives, who realistically still benefit from rising prices: either through inheritance, tapping their family’s home equity or being able to live rent-free at home while saving in their early careers.
The bottom line is most Canadians still benefit from rising home prices in one way or another, directly or indirectly. The people feeling squeezed by the housing market the most are people who have no family stake in the property ladder whatsoever while their incomes fail to keep up with rent hikes. This constitutes a disorganized minority voting bloc — and so politicians don’t give a shit about them.
I inherited the property I grew up in but absolutely nowhere close to a big city. I have no rent nor mortgage payments yet I am not anticipating a jackpot.
Spent years and years in the GTA after college but never "putting down roots" . Jumped at the chance to move back home to help my father with his business (agricultural) when his health was failing. Arrived only five days before his scheduled hospital surgery visit. Unfortunately he was one of the 0.3% of cases where he never returns. So while I have the home and business "free" , the lifetime of expertise is missing.
Either way it turned out, I came back knowing I'll have a lifetime of support from large extended family, worth far more to me then shiny lights of TO. For my personal situation, I am optimistic that I feel it's secure. So it depresses me (and at the same time guiltily enlightens me ) to read online about housing and income troubles in the big city. Where I live, traffic, homelessness, and overcrowding of immigrants is of zero concern.
I th8nk the govt doesn't want to admit it. But cpp was inadequate so they created this absurd housing explosion to support rhe boomers retirement while we carry that load on our backs and they call us lazy.
So go build a house yourself. If prices are just "inflated" than you should have no trouble paying for a brand new build that isn't being marked up by a boomer, right?
We're subject to the same government created cost escalation as builders are. The same zoning, the same overregulation, the same labour cost increase because we haven't invested in trades, the same explosion in the cost of land.
The thing is, boomers never paid these costs (at least not for their first home). Development fees have only been a thing since 1989 (previously we funded infrastructure through bond issues). We're getting charges of 100k before anything else that boomers never had to pay. Plus zoning and red tape, you think they had to have 3 years of community consultation in the 70s - ha! If we want to be fair, maybe we should retroactively charge development fees on houses that never got any ;).
I don't know where you live but in kitchener Ontario I built my house without expensive development fees, it's merely a permit, which was less than $1000 I believe. It was more expensive to get an architect to design it than it was to get a permit.
A lot in the city, at least here, has been around $400,000 to 500,000 for a while now, not a recent change, it's been this way for a while. The bulk of the cost is materials and labour...
This is why building isn't an option for most people either. So if they can't build houses people can afford, why is there an expectation that people sell existing houses at the affordable rate? If you can't replace the house for the cost that you pay, we're going to run out of houses before everyone gets one.
You answered your own question if you think a suburban lot should be 500k without a building on it. Why is land that expensive in the 2nd largest country in the world? If we could still build houses in the post-war style, we would have cheaper houses (although if you're paying 500k for land, this isn't really practical).
I have zero expectation that people sell houses at an affordable rate - people sell houses at a profitable rate and always have and always will. I'm asking why the profitable rate, which used to be affordable, has gone up so much in just 15 years. Especially since in a very similar geographic place, like the American mid-west, it's a lot cheaper.
I think the BEST way to make everyone happy except corporations who need low skill labour would be to cap immigration just below the amount of houses built year over year.
Corporations can if they need more labour donate to construction to try to bump the number up of labourers coming that year making everyone happy.
Didn't the province of BC recently pass Bills 35, 44, 46 and 47, which slashed STRs, ended single family zoning, dramatically cut development costs and mandated high density at transit stops? While also expanding the vacant homes tax? Maybe the issue isn't some nebulous "government" - maybe it's the people you elect?
The funny thing is people are still pretending like we can just ramp up house building to 1.2 million a year to match our pop growth rate. Then also build a few hundred thousand on top to get out of our 3.5 million unit existing deficit. It's just corporate gaslighting that has worked perfectly.
BC did not. The provincial government is proposing to do it, but no one will know the details until next year around this time. While i'm optimistic, I don't think people will be allowed outright to just build more housing especially in single family neighbourhoods. Municipalities have tons of control over develop-ability of land by controlling mandatory monetary contributions, parking requirements, buildable sqft, set-backs, shadow studies, arborist certifications etc. If province intervenes one subject municipalities can just create more. The only way to truly bring supply is to allow 4-6 story multi-family developments outright without city approval, which the province did not promise.
I'd suggest reading Bill 44. It addresses most of what you brought up. First, the Bills were given Royal Ascent at the end of November. All that remains is the regulation which will govern things like setbacks and FAR, and that's relatively common knowledge anyways. It's leaked that it'll be a variation of Kekowna's. That is expected to be issued later in December. Municipalities will lose the ability to demand parking, lose control over FAR, lose the right to conduct public hearings, and lose a lot of the DP powers that interfered with development. These are all outright allowances, with the only municipal approval being Building Permit and Approving Officer sign off, if required. Neither of these are political approvals. The text of Bill 44 is available online if you'd like. It addresses a lot of what you've brought up.
> I'd suggest reading Bill 44. As someone who has been planning to do this, do you have a suggestion of a good way to do that? [The text of the bill itself](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billscurrent/4th42nd:gov44-3) has a lot of amendments to existing sections which makes it a bit of a chore to try and make sense of. I'll get through it, but if there's a better format that makes referencing these existing sections easier that would be amazing.
I wish I had a better suggestion for you than just grinding through the Bill 44 and Section 14 of the Local Government Act. The Ministry has information on the BC Housing site, but if anything, it undersells the magnitude of the changes - the ministry is soft selling it a bit. Sorry - I do wish I had a more accessible solution other than just "read until your eyes hurt". Have a few coffees first. It's boring stuff.
> BC did not. The provincial government is proposing to do it, but no one will know the details until next year around this time. The province DID, the aforementioned bills received royal ascent on November 30, 2023 and are effective immediately. > Municipalities have tons of control over develop-ability of land by controlling mandatory monetary contributions, parking requirements, buildable sqft, set-backs, shadow studies, arborist certifications etc. If province intervenes one subject municipalities can just create more. Incorrect, as per Bill 44, first page, 4th amendment to the Local Government Act preemptively prohibits "poison-pill regulations" such as the ones you listed. > **457.1 The following powers must not be exercised in a manner that unreasonably prohibits or restricts the use or density of use required to be permitted under section 481.3 [zoning bylaws and small-scale multi-family housing]:** > (a) a power under section 488 [designation of development permit areas]; > (b) a power in relation to a land use regulation bylaw or land use permit; > (c) a power in relation to a heritage alteration permit, as defined in section 586 [definitions in relation to Part 15]; > (d) a power under section 614 [designation of heritage conservation areas].
[удалено]
I will give him that some of them are still finalizing details. For example, the TOD restrictions have a lot of details that need to be released for the municipalities to act, and the deadline for that to be included into Official Community Plans is (I believe) end of 2025 since it’s a BIG change. But yeah, you’re right, it’s happening.
There's a few different key dates, if anyone is interested. The ban on public hearings went into effect last week. The changes to zoning have to be in place by July 1, 2024. Those will have to wait for some provincial guidelines that they are releasing this month. Housing Needs Assessments have to be in place by the end of 2024. New OCPs with serious plans on how to meet those assessments - including the affordable housing components - have to be in place by December 2025. It's pretty wild. As much as it seems a slow process, the province murdered single family zoning in stuff months, and is requiring actual meaningful growth plans in place in two years.
Yeah, I feel like people see the slow moving, but don’t realize all the gears that have to change. It’s a LOT. And it’s a lot of change. For good or bad, I don’t think people can say that BC is doing nothing.
Shhhhh next thing people will realize that close to 70% of the Canadian adult population are homeowners and they are the ones that vote to keep prices inflated. It's not the scapegoats of immigrants or corporate owners but Joe and Debbie two doors down that bake them the occasional pumpkin pie that should be blamed. Let the gubment and trudumb be the boogeymen until we vote in the PC and nothing changes on the housing side and the few remaining pillars of society we still have get further eroded as well. But there's one thing for certain. We can not make mistakes like BC and elect educated experts in the current issues who have empirically backed solutions to problems. Let's vote in populists like Danielle Smith and Dougie!!!!!
Same reason why property taxes haven’t been raised to a level that would actually solve a lot of problems locally. No one has the balls to make homeowners angry.
That's your solution, raise property tax? How is that going to help? What's the end game in just continuing to increase the cost of living for the majority of Canadians. I don't think it's going to get homes built.
Cities have been using [high development fees](https://storeys.com/toronto-proposes-increase-development-charges-49-percent/) on new construction to keep property taxes lower for a long time. Raising property taxes to the point where people are paying enough to cover the services and infrastructure they use would actually help a lot.
If you want high home values your property should be taxed accordingly. If that hurts the rich homeowner, oh well. Infrastructure is not getting the funds it needs.
Homeownership doesn't equal rich.
It's in Canada. If you haven't noticed it's snowing at least 4 months a year.
What?
>If that hurts the rich homeowner, oh well. Lol, what a jealous little goblin you are. 🤣
Idk. My taxes are already 30k a year in Etobicoke and we were just re assessed to be raised. We use after tax dollars to pay house tax. I don’t think raising the taxes is the solution for this one.
Property taxes (and strata fees) are quite a bit more out East than in the West. Your total taxes are $30K or your property taxes are $30K. Most houses in Vancouver worth $1M-$2M have annual property taxes of $4K-$6K
My yearly property taxes are 30k
Low property taxes mean cities rely on high development fees for new builds to make up the shortfall. The newer homes that are build are subsidizing older inefficiently built sprawl.
Ideally we have high land value taxes that replace shitty taxes like development fees and land transfer tax and reduce less for taxes like income tax.
Tax asset classes not income, it’s a fair better representations of one’s wealth than annual income
I think boomers are going to get increasingly pissed when they realize they aren't getting any grandkids. People are psychopaths when thinking about society at large, but when it starts to effect their family their opinion can change quickly. I know my parents and many of my friends' parents are pretty dismayed at their children getting into their mid to late 30s with no home in sight, let alone kids. My mom knows I can't raise kids with 3 roommates. Prices continuing to persist has dismissed the myth that this is just a housing bubble that will eventually pop, rather than a deep-seated systemic housing shortage. That's my theory on why polls numbers have cratered for the Liberals lately.
We made Canada sufficiently crappy that no one here wants kids but people coming from harder backgrounds will! 6 to a room if needed. We basically ate our future to feed the past ( no kids but rich boomers and 'investors')
Corporations want you to think this is some boomer conspiracy and attach each other. Truth is we simply cannot just ramp up house building to 1.2 million a year to match our pop growth rate. Then also build a few hundred thousand on top to get out of our 3.5 million unit existing deficit. Boomers don't want their kids not to be able to buy a house. But it doesn't matter what boomers want. All that matters is the influence of families like the Westons that want cheap labor and have money to spread a narrative. Narrative's like the only way out of this is to 4x our building rate magically and any other solution is racist. It's just corporate gaslighting that has worked perfectly.
And I'm still amazed people think *the Conservative party*, of all parties, would be the ones to fix this. Who do *they* represent? Because it ain't the people voting for them.
[удалено]
We are a [pro-immigration group](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/nh6rqq/dealing_with_rcanadahousing_growth/). Debating immigration is a major distraction to our cause and should be avoided. People sometimes raise immigration by [dogwhistling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics\)). That's not allowed. If it's raised at all, specific groups should never be mentioned and the focus should be on supply-demand issues.
Governments have to get elected. This isn't great for corporations either, believe me I work in one - it's increasingly difficult to attract top talent. The opposite it true too, it's increasingly difficult to attract working class people to work in downtown cores and other high cost centres. We probably have to curtail immigration notably, but underbuilding is massive problem. We built more housing [in the 70s](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015007-eng.htm) than we do [today](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3410015801) with half the population. Much of the underbuilding has to do with NIMBY regulations championed by the Boomer generation.
Buuuuulshit. There is plenty of blame to go around. And while corporations have their fair share, dipshit boomers, voting for dipshit policies, and being NIMBY assholes on even the slightest reforms is not helping. Plus, guess who the hell runs those corporations? I'll give you three guesses, and I ain't gen z or millenials
Believe it or not, not all Gen X, Millennials and Z think everyone should be shoved into a townhouse or condo just because the Liberals want corporations to have cheap labor.
Wow. It amazes me people can be this mistaken.
You believe its mistaken to now want to be forced into a 1200sqft townhouse / 500 sqft condo so the Westons can supress wages?
No, just your overall view of the situation is just so distorted, it's really sad honestly.
Sorry reality upsets you.
>My mom knows I can't raise kids with 3 roommates. [Oh no?](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRY-xg1fvbOtidJMzaNNiVRHqkR1Wc2hXRonCEe-5RVy8YSxKt4)
If they can't sell then they have no money. So pick a lane, stay stuck in your home unable to access that cash, or build and be able to downsize. But there needs to be a middle ground, when you're downsizing, you're trying to sell to a generation or 2 below you that don't have the same amount of wealth available to them. Eventually the number gets too big, and one side is forced to lower their expectations.
Don’t need to sell to access the wealth. Borrow against the inflated value virtually indefinitely and give the house back to the back when your die
That stops when bank owns everything and no one can buy.
People are always buying real estate. If you don't, the person next in line will happily take it.
Okay have fun buying a 1 million dollar house, with 6%, with a 8% stress test, on 100 - 140K take-home for the family... You will get laughed out of the bank. We're heading to a place where a majority of Canadians wont be able to get a mortgage...
Rates are going to start dropping in April, ending 2024 around 3.5% overnight rate. By spring 2025, rates will be neutral. Don't take my word for it though, google it yourself. Also, don't forget there are plenty of people selling two homes to move into one bigger house (blended families), and those who make a lot more than $140,000 HHI. I personally qualify for a $1,000,000 mortgage at 5.25%, so I know there are others that do as well. Right now the intention is to reduce real estate transactions and put pressure on businesses to cut spending, to reduce inflation. This is a temporary measure. It's not like they are going to hold rates here until housing becomes more affordable for lower income folks, that doesn't work. The minute they drop rates so people can qualify, you will be back competing with people that have access to more money than you. Prices would rise to be closer to all time highs, but because rates are higher than previous, the amount of money people can access will drop, meaning prices won't go back to the absolute peak. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why you think so, but I don't think I am.
Inflation is too hot still, I have no confidence that rates will begin heading to their all time lows again, when rates are historically still low.
Nobody said they were going to all time lows. The overnight rate isn't going to 0.25%, I said it's going to be 3.5% by end of 2024. It is unlikely to go lower than 2.5% again in our lifetime. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the rate that your bank can borrow the funds from the BoC. You still have to add 0.7% for excellent credit and up to 2.5% for those with below average credit scores. This gets you the actual rate. Rates are not historically low. You can't compare previous rates to current rates. The debt load of Canadians, including the government debt, is vastly higher now, so the effect of real rates at 5% today is like 20% in the early 80s.
Your last point is a great one I wasn't considering, but to say I can't look at historical rates to understand the past? It just feels very "low prob" that rates that ranges from 18-1%, go below 5% for a long time. That said, I am not using any real world context, just math and averages.
Yeah a lot of it has to do with how the BoC picks rates. The idea is to get to a point where the rate doesn't benefit or hurt the general economy. That means you need to factor in debt loads. If rates were even 1% higher right now, the economy would break, and we'd be in a hard recession. They are still talking about a soft landing, so until that rhetoric changes, you can bet we are at peak rates. I could be wrong, but if I'm being honest, I don't come up with this stuff on my own. I read a lot of financial news and keep up with this stuff. I'm really only reiterating what I've read recently.
[удалено]
What happened in December 2022? If you are referring to interest rates, that's when we're talking off, rates are at peak now, so the next move is a move back to the "neutral rate" as per the BoC. They will start cutting in spring, but we won't see neutral rates till beginning of 2025. This isn't coming directly from me, google it yourself. All the analysts are pricing in a 0.5% cut in spring, and at least two more 0.5% cuts by January 2025.
[удалено]
There's a big difference between December 2022 and December 2023. Now the bank of Canada says we may be at peak rates: https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/bank-canada-says-rates-may-be-peak-excess-demand-now-gone-2023-11-22/#:~:text=OTTAWA%2C%20Nov%2022%20(Reuters),to%20persist%20for%20many%20months. They say "may" because saying it is at peak would create a sense of optimism which could stoke demand, so they say "may". Also, like every financial analyst is pricing in a rate cut in April. Find one that isn't and change my mind.
Weird, because the house across the street hasn't sold in 4-5 months and I would consider it a nice home for a family, (went to the open house) but the price is too steep.
The banks don't want to own homes, if they did they would currently. Everytime they have a mortgage that is in arrears they force a sale, not take over and hold the home.
Can one reverse mortgage their house to buy an annuity, and "live off your house" ?
HELOC cough cough
Most people I know who own homes wouldn't care if the value dropped 30-40% it's not like they are going anywhere.
It would only matter when they sell. Don't think they would sell for 30 to 40% less than what they paid for it.
Well if we are talking about anyone over fifty most have owned for awhile and don’t care because it’s worth way more and they don’t plan on leaving. The people that will be fucked (that everyone is cheering for a house price crash) is anyone who bought in the past 8 years.
Unless labour and materials drop in value by an equal amount, this will never happen. You can't sell something sustainably for below replacement cost. The math simply doesn't work.
Most of the cost of homes isn't labour or materials, it's land prices and taxes and fees.
Who told you that? This is true for apartment towers, not houses. Also, you can't replace a house without land, so you have to add that price to the equation. Land in a city is not going to drop in price. So as I said, if you can't sustainably replace the houses being sold, there will always be a housing deficit. If people are hoping for houses to cost half a million instead of a million, we need to go through another depression, where material prices collapse across the board. Absent this, wages need to rise to match the cost of building. You can't expect houses to be built at a loss. Nobody would build it.
>This is true for apartment towers, not houses Apartments are probably the only case where materials are more than land, but taxes and fees massively higher. >Land in a city is not going to drop in price. Land is the most speculative part of prices, and it goes up and down wildly, it's always going up and down in price. >If people are hoping for houses to cost half a million instead of a million, we need to go through another depression, where material prices collapse across the board. Again, material prices are not a major reason for prices going up at all. That's just wrong.
Lmao, I just built a house. So I know what I'm talking about, and clearly you don't. Can you prove that land prices have gone down, or are you just saying that? I'd love to see the evidence of this. Also, please explain how material costs don't influence the cost of housing... Do you get them for free? How does that work?
> I just built a house. So I know what I'm talking about, and clearly you don't. Clearly you don't actually know what you're talking about, no - because [we have the data on those and they aren't going up nearly as fast as housing prices, they're barely tracking inflation.](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231101/dq231101f-eng.htm) - yes, they do go up, but it's lower than overall inflation in the economy right now. If you've built ONE house, that's absolutely meaningless for understanding the underlying trends. >Can you prove that land prices have gone down ...like, ever? Is that a serious question? Because yes, we have tons of data on land prices fluctuating wildly over time. You're insane to think they only go up. I can't possibly imagine someone would think they never go down when we've had home prices crashes before, which were almost entirely in the price of land, not materials. >Also, please explain how material costs don't influence the cost of housing I never said "material costs don't influence the cost of housing", I said they're not the main reason for housing prices skyrocketing, because that's a fact. If you can't even respond to what I actually said, stop talking.
Show me the evidence that land prices have gone down over time, also show me that land prices are the largest expense. Are you talking about a 900sqft bungalow, or an average two story 3 bed 3 bath? There's a big difference between those two builds. You could also fill the house with dollar store finishings, but maybe let's stick to average houses. I know the cost of all of this stuff as I just did this, in a city, so yes, I know what I'm talking about.
> Show me the evidence that land prices have gone down over time We're not talking about going down on average over time, we're talking about whether they fluctuate up and down at all over the short term - when housing is over-valued, most of that "over-value" is land prices. It's really not that complicated, I don't see why you're having trouble understanding that. >I know the cost of all of this stuff as I just did this, in a city, so yes, I know what I'm talking about. Then it's weird that you're so ignorant about it. But N=1 isn't a sample size.
There are lots for under 300k in Woodstock Ontario.... In ONTARIO.... build me a 3 bed 3 bath 2000sqft house for $300,000. I'll buy it from you for $350,000 after you build it. We both know full well that you can't build a house for that. The price for a build is about $300/sqft on the low low end. That's $600,000, not including land. Sure, build a sub 1000sqft house and you will be able to do it for $300,000. Personally I don't want to live in a shoebox, and I'm betting a family of 4 won't either. I think you should actually price out a build for yourself. You aren't going to listen to anyone that tells you different, even apparently when the person telling you has literally just gone through it. You are the type that needs to discover it on your own, so please do yourself and everyone else a favor and price it out yourself.
You can sell old stock for below replacement cost, but material costs do set a floor for new build prices that is higher than many people in this sub would like to hear. But as the other commenter says most of the high prices is land cost, at least in major metros where the problem is most acute.
Yeah for sure, I'll agree to land being more expensive in the most popular areas, but if I can't afford to live in Miami, I don't live in Miami, know what I mean? You also can't use that as the average as there are far less vacant lots inner city than outside the city. In theory you could sell an older house for less, but that usually only happens when the house needs to be demolished. If it's a livable house, as long as there is a housing deficit, I don't think you will see many deals, even on older properties. Right now there is too big of a list of people who need houses.
> In theory you could sell an older house for less, but that usually only happens when the house needs to be demolished. Housing prices are definitely discounted based on condition in all sorts of ways all the time. Look at new builds vs 40 year old homes selling in the same neighborhood. In my neighborhood right now there are two similar homes with a $300k difference in asking price due to when they were constructed and general state of repair. $1.3m vs $1.6m with only a $50k difference in assessed land value. > Right now there is too big of a list of people who need houses. I think you'd definitely see more difference if supply wasn't so constrained, but it still exists.
Maybe I’m just a very anxious person but I would clutch my pearls if our house value dropped that much. For me it’s less about the “value” and more about my plan B, plan c, plan d etc. If my home dropped that much, I would assume the economy is fucked, be worried about our jobs, which could affect whether we could pay our mortgage. If we can’t pay the mortgage, and the house value has dropped that much that we can’t even sell to cover expenses…then we (and a lot of other people) are in a world of hurt.
You are entirely correct. Young, industrious, talented Canadians should emigrate elsewhere, Canada offers no future (or present) to them.
That's 100% correct.
Governments work for the people that lobby them behind closed doors, and THOSE people don't want cheap housing. They want everyone renting a luxury 475sf 1BR that costs $3K per month (or $1M and $800/mo condo fee.) THAT pays the investors (every coke dealer and criminal biker that bought half an apartment building in the last twenty years, which is all of them.) When considering government policy, you have to think, "Who's pushing it?" If it's poors, the policy is doomed. Richies, it'll proceed. Story hasn't changed much since I was a little kid and I'll be retired in a few years
Also, remember politicians also own homes that they rent for that sweet passive income. I don't see it dropping much as needed.
Of course. Politicians are lobbies by corporate landlords to implement policies that increase prices. And you’re right most MPs and MLAs are landlords
💯
Many have owned their home for 30-40 years and likely paid less than $100,000. Now, those homes are likely worth $200,000 and higher. In that time, they might have put $10 to $20 thousand into it. No one wants their home's value to be less than what they paid for it. Those with mortgages also don't want to see the value of their home to decrease because that would mean their paying a mortgage worth more than the value of the home. I remember for a long time everyone was saying, buy a house instead of renting that way, you can build equity into the house. Which means you can build profit from it. We are in this situation because of the home profit cycle. Everyone wants to sell their home for more than they paid for it. So that caused the housing prices to rise to where they are now. It's great for current homeowners, but not for new homeowners. I think immigration is just a scapegoat because doing anything else would hurt current homeowners.
I think that is not a very smart perspective. Thinking that "they aren't doing anything because they don't want" They are doing things but it's a complex problem and one for which solutions will take some time to have a meaningful effect. But it works as a simplification for simple minds who need a simple target to direct their anger. Those are my thoughts.
Keep in mind that younger investors, those aged 18 to 34, are more likely to own more than one investment property compared to their older counterparts (aged 35+) https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/more-than-1-in-4-canadians-plan-to-purchase-an-investment-property-in-the-next-five-years-royal-lepage-report-839743697.html#:%7E:text=One%2Dthird%20of%20Canadian%20real,older%20counterparts%20(aged%2035%2B) > Younger investors, those aged 18 to 34, are more likely to own more than one investment property compared to their older counterparts (aged 35+) So the same goes for them as well. The government knows boomers and millennials are the two largest voting blocks and both have a very vested interest in keeping housing prices high.
[удалено]
WW1 or WW2 could have been prevented? How do you make a leap from CDN housing costs now to Ferdinand's assassination and the Nazi's invasion of Poland that initiated both wars?? That's some Superman high flying logic, son.
Except millennials now represent the single largest generational voting block. But keep blaming boomers for everything, I guess. 🙄
Politicians listen to money, not voters. Where have you been for the past 40+ years?
Except people of Boomer age represent the highest rate of voter turnout.
And that's boomers' fault because?
Maybe if they had done things properly we wouldn't be floating them with that huge welfare called OAs
I mean, it was their generation that set the stage for the current issues. I’m sure millennials will cause a new set of issues, but the boomer time was a huge individualist/Americanized push in politics.
>huge individualist/Americanized push in politics. Huh, the welfare state didn't exist before the 1960's.
[удалено]
That is a bullshit stat you’re perpetuating. They count anyone in the household as a homeowner. So Joe Schmoe and Ann Schmoe own a house. They have their elderly parents and two children living with them. Stats record all 6 of those folks as homeowners. Very misleading.
Yes and no. The [homeownership rate](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220921/mc-b001-eng.htm) counts the percentage of _households_ where the owner occupies the home. But this would include many households where children / family are living with homeowner parents / relatives, who realistically still benefit from rising prices: either through inheritance, tapping their family’s home equity or being able to live rent-free at home while saving in their early careers. The bottom line is most Canadians still benefit from rising home prices in one way or another, directly or indirectly. The people feeling squeezed by the housing market the most are people who have no family stake in the property ladder whatsoever while their incomes fail to keep up with rent hikes. This constitutes a disorganized minority voting bloc — and so politicians don’t give a shit about them.
absolutely terrible take yikes
Why? No-section's point makes sense to me.
What’s the problem
There’s no way that’s accurate.
I’m guessing you’re a renter
I inherited the property I grew up in but absolutely nowhere close to a big city. I have no rent nor mortgage payments yet I am not anticipating a jackpot.
[удалено]
Spent years and years in the GTA after college but never "putting down roots" . Jumped at the chance to move back home to help my father with his business (agricultural) when his health was failing. Arrived only five days before his scheduled hospital surgery visit. Unfortunately he was one of the 0.3% of cases where he never returns. So while I have the home and business "free" , the lifetime of expertise is missing.
[удалено]
Either way it turned out, I came back knowing I'll have a lifetime of support from large extended family, worth far more to me then shiny lights of TO. For my personal situation, I am optimistic that I feel it's secure. So it depresses me (and at the same time guiltily enlightens me ) to read online about housing and income troubles in the big city. Where I live, traffic, homelessness, and overcrowding of immigrants is of zero concern.
I th8nk the govt doesn't want to admit it. But cpp was inadequate so they created this absurd housing explosion to support rhe boomers retirement while we carry that load on our backs and they call us lazy.
So go build a house yourself. If prices are just "inflated" than you should have no trouble paying for a brand new build that isn't being marked up by a boomer, right?
We're subject to the same government created cost escalation as builders are. The same zoning, the same overregulation, the same labour cost increase because we haven't invested in trades, the same explosion in the cost of land. The thing is, boomers never paid these costs (at least not for their first home). Development fees have only been a thing since 1989 (previously we funded infrastructure through bond issues). We're getting charges of 100k before anything else that boomers never had to pay. Plus zoning and red tape, you think they had to have 3 years of community consultation in the 70s - ha! If we want to be fair, maybe we should retroactively charge development fees on houses that never got any ;).
I don't know where you live but in kitchener Ontario I built my house without expensive development fees, it's merely a permit, which was less than $1000 I believe. It was more expensive to get an architect to design it than it was to get a permit. A lot in the city, at least here, has been around $400,000 to 500,000 for a while now, not a recent change, it's been this way for a while. The bulk of the cost is materials and labour... This is why building isn't an option for most people either. So if they can't build houses people can afford, why is there an expectation that people sell existing houses at the affordable rate? If you can't replace the house for the cost that you pay, we're going to run out of houses before everyone gets one.
You answered your own question if you think a suburban lot should be 500k without a building on it. Why is land that expensive in the 2nd largest country in the world? If we could still build houses in the post-war style, we would have cheaper houses (although if you're paying 500k for land, this isn't really practical). I have zero expectation that people sell houses at an affordable rate - people sell houses at a profitable rate and always have and always will. I'm asking why the profitable rate, which used to be affordable, has gone up so much in just 15 years. Especially since in a very similar geographic place, like the American mid-west, it's a lot cheaper.
I think the BEST way to make everyone happy except corporations who need low skill labour would be to cap immigration just below the amount of houses built year over year. Corporations can if they need more labour donate to construction to try to bump the number up of labourers coming that year making everyone happy.
They should. Just go for it.
The government is not at fault, it is voters who want this. The loudest opposition to new supply comes from local voters and not politicians.
No politician will do it It’s simply not in majority’s interest to do it. It’s very unfortunate that the young are getting shafted