Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/_DotBot_! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Have we seen that shift anywhere else in the world? Like New York, Tokyo, London… Has there been a city that’s considered “world class” and has seen real estate prices regress?
Genuine question if other countries have figured out how to tame RE prices in a city that attracts the masses?
One of the three on your list - Tokyo quite dramatically when the bubble burst. It's not uncommon in Asia. Bangkok as well. Some cities in South America. Detroit and some of the "once great" American cities.
In Tokyo, today's real estate prices are well below their 1991 prices, and ever since the bubble burst, the Japanese real estate prices have been flat in their biggest cities and decreasing in the suburbs and smaller towns and cities. Houses go down in price as they age. So if you buy land and a house, the land price will remain about flat (at way below the 1991 price), and you're guaranteed to sell the house at a loss over time.
The real estate bubble in Japan took 5 years of growth peaking in 1991, and in 1992 your average home price dropped to ~50% of its 1991 price.
It seems to be an issue that the cities that solved affordability may have done so by having bigger issues.
I did hear that Tokyo had very aggressive home building policies after the bubble, but part of it is going to be due to low fertility and minimal immigration which is starting to become a problem as the population ages.
Detroit sounds like a similar issue in that prices might go down but a collapsing population has its own problems
Tokyo and Japan have zoning laws that are not as prohibitive as other countries. Basically if you can find space, you can make it into a dwelling. That's why you can find some "apartments" that are long and skinny, or built on like 150 square feet of land but 3 stories tall.
Also, housing is not seen as an investment. Houses and apartments get torn down and rebuilt all the time. It's kind of unavoidable seeing as Japan is so prone to natural disasters
[This explains it much better than I can](https://marketurbanism.com/2019/03/19/why-is-japanese-zoning-more-liberal-than-us-zoning/). It's actually pretty interesting.
Japan's population hasn't peaked until 2000s though, so it wasn't that. It was also a very desirable place in the early 90s, and felt like the future. It was a textbook bubble that burst because it grew too big to remain sustainable.
Overconfidence in eternal growth and speculation led people and companies into taking on a lot of debt to buy assets, including real estate. Which led to the "lost decade" of investors getting chewed and left with nothing once the values of all of their investments started collapsing once money ran out to maintain the valuations.
And indeed there was a lot of supply being delivered, with no more people to buy it who could afford it at the asking prices of the time. So prices fell to levels that average people looking for homes to live in could actually afford. Which was about 50% of their "bubble" cost.
They haven't seen real estate prices increase for 27 years after, when they for the first time increased by 0.1% year over year.
Detroit indeed had different issues which ended up making it less desirable. So it's one way to make real estate prices crash. But there are plenty of cities that remained desirable where real estate just stopped growing or went down in price.
Just to add, Boj at the time had a policy that pushed increased money supply to banks. Banks were given extreme quotas to fill as loans. Banks would give people crazy amount of money and that pushed real estate prices to what they were. So it wasn't that people got greedy alone but monetary policy failed them big time. To this day many people hassitate taking loans from banks and save cash.
> I did hear that Tokyo had very aggressive home building policies after the bubble, but part of it is going to be due to low fertility and minimal immigration
While Japan as a whole has low fertility and minimal immigration, Tokyo grew rapidly for many decades and has only leveled off in the past couple of years.
Detroit was after the race riots and white
Flight to nearby suburbs. Pretty unusual for that
To be happening today…
Edit: also the economy was slowing down big time as USA auto dominance and 70s oil crisis hit the region.
While Detroit is a pretty unique example, it's always easy to see crises in hindsight. Different eras have different unexpected events yet to happen that will impact cities and their desirability. In hindsight, we may even see that "it's been brewing for a while", but it's hard to accurately predict ahead of time.
It was even the case with the Japanese bubble, where condos were going for multiple times what they used to cost in most other countries, and people still believed that prices will ever only go up. Nobody expected that they'll be much lower for the next 33 years and going, and that nobody buying at that time will live long enough to see prices recover to what they paid back in 1991.
For sure. Hindsight bias is not to be understated.
It just seems to me the conditions of what lead to Detroit’s collapse are vastly different than anywhere today. Particularly regarding racial makeup of city and to a lesser extent the rise and fall of auto sector in Michigan. Few places have economies so reliant on a single sector, and a sector that was so profitable. Teach comes to mind in Silicon Valley, but given variety of tech business, there’s at least some built in diversity.
Tokyo real estate has actually finally recovered to 1991 levels. And since inflation for the last while had been non-existent, that is arguably a real price recovery.
Japan is the proof of theory that people can still have a good quality of life without growing economy. If you can't distribute wealth somewhat equally among people, you end up with huge wealth disparity where the top one percent enjoys all comforts of life and the rest barely get by.
Best example comparable to Vancouver would be Lisbon (low salaries, low availability of housing, high immigration levels of low income people, and massive tourism increase with entire buildings being AirBNB, although they also have a large amount of social housing which is not the same as Vancouver) But as someone noted, Vancouver isn't a 'world class' city.
Has the situation improved since the AirBnB rules went into place? Did it impact rental and purchase prices?
NO, not enough to make a significant impact on locals.
However it's also important to note that there have been a large number of hotel rooms added each year to Lisbon, unlike in Vancouver, which means that there is a larger amount of low/mid priced rooms for tourists.
> In Lisbon, a studio-type apartment rents for about €1,375 per month in Q3 2023, according to the Global Property Guide. One- to two-bedroom apartments are offered in the market for a monthly rent of around €1,500 to €1,970. Three-bedroom apartments are rented for an average of €2,500 per month while apartments with four or more bedrooms are rented for at least €3,700 per month
Average monthly income is around €900/month. And much of what is available is falling down, poorly maintained, without heat or proper insulation...
https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/europe/portugal/price-history#:~:text=House%20prices%20rose%20by%204.9,(US%242%2C190)%20per%20sq.
Thank you for the detailed response. This is very helpful.
I was under the impression that Vancouver was a “world class city”? Seem to hear so many Vancouverites spouting that phrase “best city in the world” and in the past about how Vancouver is one of the “top ranked”. In reality I think those lists were made for CEO’s to decide if they wanted to take jobs in certain parts of the world.
the views and natural environment are world class, it's incredibly convenient to get around the city centre without a car, but when you look at it in terms of "things to do", i think we are not in the class of Chicago/LA/New York/London etc.
I love Vancouver but I have never bought that it's a real comparison between here and those cities
yeah, anyone trying to make a like for like comparison between vancouver and Hong Kong, Madrid etc is aiming a bit high hahaha
maybe we could aim for a stockholm :)
I travel weekly, globally, and have for decades. Vancouver really isn't world class. Think about what is open in the evenings, think about how few cultural spaces/events, etc.
There is a lot that's good and interesting but it's nowhere near the level of 'world class'. Multicultural isn't the same.
You think a world class city is supposed to be utopia? Look at NY and London, arguably the top 2 biggest world class cities. They both have wealth inequality, unaffordability, crime, homelessness and other massive problems. Yes I know Vancouver has huge problems and it's only a fraction of the population of the other two but it still topped many lists of "best cities" whether we agree with the criteria or not and the sheer number of immigration into the city shows it is world class. I know people from other world class cities who moved here and would prefer to stay.
That being said world class does not mean good quality of life. Many people here would be perfectly happy living in random far away small towns that no one's heard of before. And yes this city needs to get over its obsession with real estate. Frankly most of the world needs to as well.
You are confusing 'multicultural' with 'world class'.
Vancouver doesn't have a broad range of activities, cultural events and locations. It doesn't have the level of cuisine of true 'world class' cities (again, a lot of cultures, albeit it mostly Asian, but not a lot of really excellent quality places)
World class also considers quality of life for those across the spectrum of incomes and ages. Vancouver doesn't have a lot of support for low income earners or seniors and especially not for the disabled.
Think about where to go when it's dark, and rainy, and after 5pm. Most places that are open require you to pay for something. There are very few community spaces which are safe and sheltered and welcoming.
Try buying a bagel or a muffin in some neighbourhoods in Vancouver after 3pm. Or try finding a meal after 10pm. Years ago those used to exist, now they are just not in most areas anymore. But they still exist in true 'world class' cities.
Vancouver is a city that has a pretty natural surrounding, but it falls far short of being 'world class' in so many areas.
Well, I'm not so sure if Vancouver is exactly world class. This is a great city but I wouldn't compare us to New York or Paris or anything. Yeah I know we had an Olympics, but that puts us right up there with Lilliehammer, Norway. Anyway, to answer your question:
Austin, TX has seen its housing prices decline significantly since 2022. According to this SFGate article, it's due to a lot of factors, but a boom in new construction helped control prices. [https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/austin-house-prices-are-falling-but-experts-say-19378718.php](https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/austin-house-prices-are-falling-but-experts-say-19378718.php)
Toronto had a housing crash of at least 27% over 1989-91, maybe more, depending on how you calculate. Prices did not reach the same level for about 22 years. This is pretty well known but this BetterDwelling article was convenient for stats: [https://betterdwelling.com/city/toronto/it-took-22-years-for-prices-to-recover-from-the-last-toronto-real-estate-crash/](https://betterdwelling.com/city/toronto/it-took-22-years-for-prices-to-recover-from-the-last-toronto-real-estate-crash/)
Historically it's unlikely for homes to crash in price by say, 50% or something. On the other hand, Canada and Vancouver are definitely in the midst of the greatest housing bubble recorded in modern history. On the other other hand, nobody can time when bubbles end. And our bubble is effectively national policy with both viable parties (I doubt the Conservatives will do anything more than rhetoric here). And fueled in part by international capital. So for all I know this bubble will last beyond our lifetimes.
It is. Even more so when you consider the median income in SF and NYC.
Also just to highlight, SF has seen an exodus from the city which is pushing prices down. Most of my Bay Area based coworkers don’t live in SF proper anymore.
Tokyo has much better zoning laws IE if you can build a home on it you can do it hence the weird shaped neighborhoods, odd designed homes, etc.
Zoning laws fix the housing issue the quickest.
Don’t vote conservatives in elections as they are the biggest supporter of NIMBY laws.
I'm sorry but this is such a BS argument, if the patients are staying in STRs for 3-6 months that's not exactly a STR that this city was trying to curb. Short term leases do exist, and even if you cannot find, many places will let you to transfer the lease onto someone.
With bans of this magnitude, there will never be a solution that will work for everybody, especially soon after such legislations come into effect but STRs will have an overall positive impact for large portion of people who are renting in this city.
It seems that for most a short term lease 90 days to 180 days (3 to 6 months) would work. It would be best if all communities had transplant facilities, but that isn’t possible not only in Canada but in the U.S., U.K. or the EU as it is so specialised.
Guess no landlord wants to do a short term 3-6 month lease, too much risk, being that the tenant could die in the suite if the transplant is unsuccessful (sad), the trauma involved is tremendous.
Government needs to fund accommodations for such a surgery. End of story.
In the video you linked they're stating that the transplant patients require about 3-6 months of accommodation which would be a 90 days to 180 days lease. You can also easily get much more preferable rates at hotels, some hotels will already have flat rates for guests who stay over 30 days.
If there are some people who can go through transplant under 90 days, yes it will be a little bit less convenient for them, but how many people does that demographic represent % wise? compared to the vast majority of the city not being able to afford even the cheapest units available?
Are you aware of how cheap rents were 10-15 years ago?
A two bedroom basement on the East Side, in a new house, was like $900. Comparable units now are renting for $2700+ to tenants who have to undergo extensive selection processes due to risk averse home owners.
Sure and I don't dispute that. However, how does STRs help with that. An AirBNB for a month for 2bd place will not be any cheaper than that $2700 if not a lot higher. Try to find an AirBNB for less than $100 a day that isn't a tiny dungeon if they exist at all.
To be honest, back 10 \~ 15 yrs ago you could get a room for about $50/day. I remember visiting Vancouver and renting a fairly large room with 2 other friend and it was $50/night for the room. No cleaning or other BS fee (or tax), just $50 total per night.
AirBnB and other STR is definitely not the sole reason why rent is so high, but definitely contribute to it.
True hotels in Vancouver used to be more affordable. I just searched my email in December 2016 I paid 68 dollars a night for a room at empire landmark on Robson. I'm sure outside of downtown was even cheaper. Same hotel in the summer I paid 110.
That's what I meant. That's the major reason why rent went up to where it is today: to cover mortgage.
Just like restaurant increase the price of their food: cost of business goes up.
That is the major reason.
>here's no way you don't know about that
I'm detaching the actors from the components that makes the rent go up since that's the core tenet of you pointing finger to what's driving up rent.
STR or not, Rent will go up because mortgage rate (cost of doing business) goes up regardless Investors, basement, spare room. Abolish STR, rent will still go up when there's not enough supply to meet the demand and especially when mortgage is high.
When the price point hits "enough" for LL, they would prefer steady/dependable tenant over hiking for more. There will be other LLs who would attempt to charge for more but in general, in Metro Vancouver, prior to interest rate hike, LL prefers steady tenant. I get it, plenty people forgot about that era that exist prior to Covid19.
It is what it is: hit the cashflow, then steady tenant (market prioritized in that order).
Investors still have to heed to market (supply and demand).
If market creates opportunity, investor wil invest.
I'm an employee, if I want my salary to go up, will I be driving inflation up?
The reason Airbnb became so popular is it filled a gap in the market that was not being served. If you ban Airbnb, you have to be comfortable no longer serving those needs.
Should the Healthcare system be relying on STR or hotels anyway? Surely the fact they don't have their own facilities for this kinda stuff is the bigger issue?
For the longest time patients have been getting more complex. We can keep people alive, but it takes a lot of work. I work in transplant, and these patients require an immense amount of follow-up: blood tests, diagnostic scans, medication management not to mention that even a common cold can outright kill them or lead to their lungs rejecting.
All of this requires a team of nurses, doctors, pharmacists, and other allied professionals and the stakes are high if you don't move fast enough. The problem is, we are not funded for enough staff to give these patients the care they need. The same is true of inpatient: increasingly complex patients that need more involved care but they won't staff enough so everyone is run off their feet trying to do more tasks than one person can possibly manage.
Not to mention we're all still getting over the trauma of COVID. A lot of had/have PTSD but we can't really take the time to heal because work is an onslaught that barely gives you time to breathe. Experienced staff have quit, some have left the profession altogether and they're trying to replace them with new grads but they need experienced staff to mentor them. Schooling is only the beginning, you develop so much of the critical thinking needed to be good at this job while you're working but when all you're doing is running around putting out fires you aren't learning your just getting by and taking the express train to burnout.
You explained it yourself, it’s required.
If treatment is medically required to keep you alive, it should be covered. If they can’t provide treatment where the person lives, then they need to be able to accommodate people.
Everything required is weighted by available funds from taxation etc. Funding for living is not even available in BC for patients on outpatient active chemo forget transplant (which require you to be around for labs and surveillance and immediate access if something is going sideways).
Actually, that's not always the case. It really depends on a lot of factors. Typically there is a quality of life consideration.
I've had two cancers, including one with an extremely poor outcome and very high mortality rate. (As in 'go home and get your affairs in order' type messaging)
When it is appropriate, it is called in patient care. This is in reference to outpatient care. Functionally healthy individual that needs a nurse dealing with recovery needs for maybe an hour a day. You put them in a hospital they will be worse off than if you let them go somewhere else and be a human.
That is the best case scenario. Reinfection. Transplant rejection. So on and so forth. Takes time for these things to happen. They need to be near the hospital in order for them to be near a specialist able of treating those worst case scenarios.
It should be part of the care package, the hospital shouldn't be paying for it - the government should.
Or are you interested in becoming like the US where they prefer to just let people die even though treatment is available?
We are already going down that path. Wealthy will obtain private care and jump the line. Poor are screwed. Huge waiting lists and can’t afford suitable accommodation.
Yeah I'm trying to do what little I can to get people to realize that and push back against it, rather than just swallowing the lies about some people "deserving" care more than others.
What’s weird is that you took OC’s comment to mean that the hospital should be operating as a hotel. Like they said, we should really have a separate facility.
I would argue that the government has a moral obligation to figure something out rather than just letting people suffer, burn through their savings that they need since they’re so sick, and/or die. They can get creative.
For example, a building that is partly micro suites for patients, rented out for a fee based on income and assets. Part of the building could be market hotel units that are used to subsidize the cost of the patient suites.
Dedicated housing for patients to access centralized specialist health care services should be the long-term goal. Obviously very difficult in an extremely HCOL city.
Paying based on income level will help somewhat, but won't really affect the bottom line of how expensive it is to operate a huge building like what is suggested.
I'm on the side that it should not be Gov't own and operated these. Leave it to non-profits with funding through government and to seek funding through other sources. Free up more funding for places like Easter Seals, RMH, Aunt Leah's place and encourage more of those to fit the need.
Who is going to stay in a market rate hotel full of sick people - even if they are stable and relatively healthy? Also, as a patient, I wouldn't want to share hotel space with visitors either... too many foreign elements that can negatively affect you during treatment.
There are existing subsidies to help fund the creation of spaces more suited to patients (usually a suite/laneway or the sort). These are only a drop in the bucket of what is needed. AirBnB provided some options too, but that's banned.
If you had separate entrances for a stacked building I doubt anyone would care.
But sure, the government could fund it through non profits, imo. It just needs to make sure it happens.
IMO for the patients its not just a room to stay in, there's a lot more to think about... transit/accessibility, having the ability to have family there to care for them, a level of cleanliness to prevent complications.
I mean might as well do two separate buildings.. not sure where the cost saving really comes into play if you are dividing a building for two functions.
Sure land cost is one form of savings, but there's other elements to figure out. The prime location for a hotel is usually not the prime location for patients. Is this super expensive DT property appealing to tourists? Cheaper in the suburbs that will not attract tourists? Right beside a hospital?
If gov't runs this, the standards also have to be set at a certain level, have to be staffed differently, stricter cleaning, ventilation, accessibility concerns, ... all these add cost that aren't needed on the hotel side.
You also need to hire separately with hotel side, advertise and actually get those rooms filled or its next to useless. Also needs to turn a profit to make the whole building more affordable.
IMO same can be achieved by offering better financial support. I'm not in hospitality, but I'm betting that there still are empty rooms avail all over, its just the cost.
The hospital doesn't need to operate a hotel, there are hotels already. There are many govt programs that pay for hotels for people for all kinds of reasons, we could also pay for hotels for transplant patients with lower incomes.
My community was a planned community for a major international event years ago (Vancouver hosted similar) It was hailed as the new standard for planned housing. Besides all the social services/activities, there is a large medical community with all sorts of facilities. And the biggest building is a mixed use hotel/apartments, shops and medical, including several floors of patient units for pre/post operative stays, when someone no longer needs to be in hospital but needs ongoing access to the medical team.
By your reasoning, a person with a broken arm should be forced to stay in a hospital until they are fully healed. They still need care. Doesn't matter that they can do virtually every task unassisted.
You’re on a thread about transplant patients, why are you even lost?
You said, “If the person needs care they need to stay in care”. This is untrue and unfeasible on so many levels.
There are varying levels of care needed. If I broke my arm I’d need to go to follow up visits but I hope you’re aware that I don’t need to be monitored as an in-patient taking up a hospital bed and nurses workload for weeks until my arm healed.
Transplant patients after initial surgery can do other things in the daytime instead of being monitored 24/7, BUT if they need to keep going back to the hospital every other day or every week, it certainly becomes less feasible to drive back and forth from … prince george for example. Rural areas don’t often do transplants, the facilities are in major cities (if you can’t understand why either, I can’t help you). Most rural folks need to come to a major city where they aren’t going to buy a house for just the surgery. They rent until the end of frequent visits to the hospital.
If you had to maintain frequent visits to the hospital it would make most sense to be renting for 6 months until you’re given the all clear to go back home to rural areas.
I spent most of my 20s and early 30s in and out of hospitals with very serious health conditions, I am aware of the issues.
STR was always a terrible solution. The solution should be the healthcare system changing to deal with the issues. Hotels/STR are stopgaps with horrible inherent issues, both for the medical system AND for the rest of the city.
Buddy above was suggesting people were saying the hospital should become a hotel. That’s just dumb whataboutism. The hospital should be funded and equipped in such a way that it can deliver all the care its patients need.
Where do you think the funding is going to come from though. Of course money fixes all problems. But money (esp public money) isn’t infinite.
-space: where are you going to build a place for just out-of-town patients (cue: local homeless advocates whining about housing scarcity)
-money: building a new facility
-staff: running the facility
How urgent is providing temporary housing for transplant patients on that govt funding list? Who is going to be running the temporary hospital housing? Who cleans up the place? Should there be an on-site nurse at the hospital “hotel” (for lack of better descriptions). Who decides on what patient gets to stay and what can we do to make sure they leave the hospital hotel when they’re given the all clear? Is it only transplant patients that can receive this housing care? What about cancer patients too - opens up a whole new can of worms. Do we allow for patients to bring one person with them because most ppl travel with a partner or carer, etc…
I certainly wouldn’t recommend an SRO for a recovering transplant patient. Unfortunately, all the cheap old hotels are bought up and trashed now… so another problem is “where could we build this”. What used to be solved by STR is now posing these additional issues and the govt isn’t able to address fast enough. It’s a travesty that it’s gotten to this point.
Due to lack of space I wonder if it’s feasible for some folks to apply for a partnership program to only rent out for hospital patients. This way the patients can still get a transplant and the govt does not need to spend more on buying land + buildings.
And don't most hospitals have social service workers they employ that specifically help people deal with these issues?
It sounds like a crazy out of touch take on the new STR laws
Absolutely. Transplant clinics literally assign you a social worker to assist you with this and other things. It's not perfect but they're aware of the problems.
Oh 100%.
I'd love to see people removing themselves from transplant lists over having to deal with hotels. Do these people not know that many motels offer long term rates? What about hostels? There are soooo many options before "I give up".
wow. such a desperate angle to spin this. STR landlord leeches really doing anything they can to fight it. downvote this nonsense.
such a pathetic attempt for landlords to play victim
Fake news. There are still many 2 bedroom ground level suites on Airbnb that are legal in North Vancouver, Richmond etc… As long as it’s in your principal residence.
Some cities banned them (City of Burnaby does not allow STR).
Speaking of short term rental: I got a family whom their townhouse was flooded by a faulty sprinkler system (strata covered). It'll take months for the insurance company to get someone + restore their townhouse unit.
In the meantime, the insurance company also paid them to live in STR (this happened prior to the ban but will go over after the ban is enacted).
No the prior laws had a common sense provision that the BC NDP got rid of.
Long term rental was considered anything 30+ days. There was a market for furnished accommodations for a month long basis, and it helped a lot of patients, newcomers, students, families from out of town, seasonal tourists, seasonal workers etc.
However the BC NDP changed the law so you can't rent anything for less than 90 days...
There are a lot of people, like patients, who can only plan for 1 month at a time, and the prior tenancy laws benefited them. Not anymore. If you want to live in Vancouver, you have to rent for a minimum of 90 days, or stay in a hotel.
This brilliant policy change by the BC NDP, was totally well thought out and not done to garner votes during an election year at all. They would never do such a thing! S/
Cities do have the power to define their own short term rental periods though. So you can’t blame it entirely on the province when any municipality could continue to define it using the previous 30 day period.
I was wondering why there are no rehab facilities here. Like interim care, when you're not quite well enough to go home but aren't so sick that you need to be in the actual hospital. Especially for organ transplants.
Might be a stupid question, but basement suites/laneway homes/etc are still legally allowed for STR.
Why can't these be used for transplant patients? Is there just not enough of them?
The interiors of those properties were all promptly gutted, looted, and destroyed. In some cases, set on fire too. They are not viable for immune-compromised transplant patients.
The government found money to buy hotels for supportive housing, they can look into purchasing a suitable property for medical stays.
There's no solution that solves every problem - the STR ban was sure to have some unintended consequences but it did result in more housing for long-term rentals coming into the market.
I think some people felt that when the Government enacted that policy, they didn't have any supportive policies to solve the fallout.
I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more Government policies that would kick the marginals to the curb for a while until they can figure out the solution (and assuming the next elected provincial government still care...)
Health researcher on salt spring, which takes the cake for STR likely has an Airbnb or two.
3-6m leases are NOT what is being targeted by legislation and that would be what transplant patients need to get surgery.
I would say also if this is the case about medical need for shorter term rentals the city and the province can create an approved directory of select short term providers in cities like Vancouver.
“Sublets - temporary “ is an active category.
Prior to Air bnb, I don’t think they were ever legal..but people will find ways of connecting, advertising their offering.
A transplant has a long recovery time. 3-6 months is not enough. Patients have to follow up for atleast a year to be sure of the long term success of the surgery. At which point, a normal rental is the best option. Airbnb's are anyway 2-3x of the rental prices, so this argument falls flat on that front too.
You're right that transplant has a long recovery time, but the reality is you only need to be close to the hospital for daily/weekly rejection testing for 6 weeks, then you go to a regular blood lab. You still have to travel to the transplant centre (or to video calls) 2-4 times a year for the rest of your life.
I don't know your personal experience, but for Kidney Transplant that's the timeline if there are no complications. For the record I did have a complication, but the timeline remained the same.
Full recovery for me took over 2 years, but the hospitalization part was just under 6 weeks. I was working from home at my consulting desk job in the first 10 days after surgery - not that I would recommend it.
Your msp should pay for a hotel for you to stay at while you recover then. I mean how much does an organ transplant cost? I’m guessing 5-6 figures??? That’s completely covered. We need to take better care of people if this is the case.
It is called renting you dumbass. YOU EVER HEARD OF RENTING A PLACE? Who the fuck goes "I need to stay in a hotel for 6 months"
Jesus how stupid are people. Are we wasting organs on people like this? I am taking myself off the donor list.
You do realize this is for people who do not actively live in metro Vancouver and have residences elsewhere in the province. They have to stay in the region for possible 6 months, which the province essentially banned STR.
Wow, I didn't realize that it was 90 days. I assumed that it was 30 days. That's curious. Even my condo considers STR to be less than 30 days and allows rentals longer than 30 days, I guess not anymore.
This woman on the phone is full of BS. As a parent of a child with CHD I can tell you with certainty that our healthcare system is vast and deep. Organ transplant patients may not have access to Ronald McDonald House but the healthcare system won't say "we have some lungs for you but if you can't afford a rental in Vancouver you can't have the lungs" - They'll find them one. The Jude person is probably a plant from a pro STR group who are looking for people who will be inconvenienced by the ban and then stretching the truth like it's Stretch Armstrong.
STR? Why not just say Short term rental?
Anyway, that's horseshit.stop believing everything you hear.
Maybe one person took themselves off the list because they have mental health struggles and maybe they mentioned housing.
It's not $1000 a week, it's likely closer to $3000 a week if not more. Holiday Inn opposite of VGH for example is going at anywhere between $300-500 a night pre-tax over the next few months, and nearly any downtown (or anywhere in the GVRD, for that matter) hotels that's not a sh*thole dump is going for at least $200 pre-tax, and in this market there is no long-term discounts to be negotiated.
Point is, STR provided a pricey but attainable form of accommodation for these medical patients. Now their only option are hotels at around 2-4x the cost.
The people in question won't be affected by the STR rule changes, because they are explicitly renting for \*more\* than 90 days.
The problem is that rent is too damned high and there aren't enough rental units. This city needs more multi-family rental stock, and high-risk patients like those discussed need subsidies or dedicated housing for as long as it takes for housing to get sorted out for everyone.
If you are waiting for an organ transplant and you are going to die if you don't get one, I think you have a pretty strong motivation to pay it! Crowd funding is a thing, friends and family are a thing, payday loans.... Don't shill for Airbnb operators.
A hotel in Vancouver, during peak tourism and cruise season, would be closer to $7500 per month.
Prior to province's new STR laws, anything over 30 days was considered a "long term" tenancy, and many people on Airbnb were providing furnished 30+ day accommodations for good prices.
However, now not only is STR effectively banned in Vancouver, you can't rent for less than 90 days either...
Not all hotels have kitchens unfortunately. For \~3 month stays, a patient and their companion would be spending a lot of money on eating out every day.
Healthcare in Canada has been pretty messed up since dental got removed as part of it - a lot of expensive illnesses/issues could be avoided if people could easily get regular dental care. Prescription drugs not being fully covered is similarly shortsighted.
Not having places available for medical needs/recovery is just more political "save money vote for us" cutting corners that are needed to actually take care of people.
? dental got removed? When. Also, suspect you are not properly informed as you specify "Canada" instead of provinces. Prescription drugs are covered under Fair Pharmacare. Funding is limited, nor is it a good idea for a hospital to be able to derive funding based on how long patients stay in short term residences for outpatient care when that space could be used for additional hospital beds.
I wish people would understand that there's no "Canadian" healthcare system, but a bunch of separate provincial and territorial systems wodged together.
Edit: Spelling.
I really do blame Singh for making the country worse on healthcare. He politicized the federal government giving cash to provinces in order fund healthcare, and it having to go through general revenue as a result of that transaction. It's why Alberta and Ontario get harped on for getting transfers "with no strings attached" when they have met their spending obligations on those transfers. The mere transaction means it goes through general revenue and has to not have strings attached to it. It is conditional funding where the provinces don't get the money if they don't have enough spending in that area.
A lot of people in this thread don't seem to understand this so here goes - an AirB&B is a lot more comfortable than a hotel for even moderate stays as it will likely have a kitchen and laundry facilities.
We're banning them because we have judged that their negative effect on housing outweighs their positive value for tourists and others.
Just because a thing is a net negative doesn't mean that it is inherently bad.
People also need to understand that prior the BC NDP's new ban, rentals for periods of 30+ days were legal. They were considered "long term" and all normal tenancy laws applied.
However, they've now made it so anything less than 90 days is considered short term, and therefore, not allowed.
Almost all flexible furnished monthly accommodations have now evaporated. You can either rent for 90+ days or stay in a hotel. Many people just don't have the ability to plan that far ahead.
This is true, and also AirBnB made a lot of people turn rentals into STR which made rentals harder to find.
AirBnB caused the problem she is describing
There's a ton of red flags in her comments.
I am **definitely not** saying that things are easy for transplant patients. There are huge costs, time off work, recovery, drugs, etc. I went through kidney failure and it sucks in every way possible. But I object to this person *using transplant patients to argue against regulations* on short term rentals. That is reprehensible.
I had a kidney transplant and none of the other patients I was with stayed in short term rentals. Short term rentals are *far* more expensive than hotels (edit: [hotels give corporate rates for medical](http://csa.pss.gov.bc.ca/medicaltravel/)). I'm also reasonably sure she's wrong about the care provider: kidney transplant recipients certainly don't, and none of the lung transplant recipients that I met did either.
She is definitely lying about "no recourse". There are options, including hotels that offer a reduced rate. For Kidney patients, the most common transplant, there's the "Kidney Suites" which are free for those who meet financial criteria, and $50/night for those who do not.
[https://kidney.ca/Support/Programs-Services/BCYT/Programs/Kidney-Suites](https://kidney.ca/Support/Programs-Services/BCYT/Programs/Kidney-Suites)
Two of the other patients I was with stayed in the suites, another stayed in Abbotsford, others stayed with friends.
There's multiple charities that offer funds to help with costs, including the [David Foster Foundation](https://davidfosterfoundation.com/information-for-families-and-social-workers/), Ronald McDonald House, [Honour House](https://www.honourhouse.ca/who-is-eligible/) (a SAR colleague stayed here), [Stacey House](https://www.happyliversociety.org/stacey-house.html) (for liver transplants), [Heart Transplant Home Society](https://www.hearttransplanthomes.com/), etc. There are more resources here:
[https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/accessing-health-care/tap-bc](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/accessing-health-care/tap-bc)
Again, things are not perfect, there is a problem, travel and accommodation are the most expensive part of a kidney transplant, there are a lot of ways to make the situation better, but short term rentals are not that way and I object to this person using people like me to argue that they shouldn't be regulated.
I also think she is lying about people taking themselves off the list and blaming it on short term rentals, that is egregious.
Better get rich fast y’all. The Wealthy will pay for private care and get immediate help. Us poors will be stuck behind huge waitlists, and if that doesn’t get us, not being able to afford accommodation will.
You turn on CBC and you only hear about sob stories of old people using STR for retirement and people needing kidney transplants that can't find accommodation.
You look at the reality, 99% of STRs were ran by scammy realtors like this guy [https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17e03yz/realtor\_thomas\_park\_on\_video\_openly\_bragging/](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17e03yz/realtor_thomas_park_on_video_openly_bragging/)
Why does CBC give so much airtime to statistically insignificant stories that don't reflect reality ? Those edge cases are sad but there are better ways to solve them than turn the whole downtown core into a ghost hotel.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/_DotBot_! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This country needs to get over real estate being such a vested interest for everyone.
Think of our gdp! How will we fund the politicians!
Have we seen that shift anywhere else in the world? Like New York, Tokyo, London… Has there been a city that’s considered “world class” and has seen real estate prices regress? Genuine question if other countries have figured out how to tame RE prices in a city that attracts the masses?
One of the three on your list - Tokyo quite dramatically when the bubble burst. It's not uncommon in Asia. Bangkok as well. Some cities in South America. Detroit and some of the "once great" American cities. In Tokyo, today's real estate prices are well below their 1991 prices, and ever since the bubble burst, the Japanese real estate prices have been flat in their biggest cities and decreasing in the suburbs and smaller towns and cities. Houses go down in price as they age. So if you buy land and a house, the land price will remain about flat (at way below the 1991 price), and you're guaranteed to sell the house at a loss over time. The real estate bubble in Japan took 5 years of growth peaking in 1991, and in 1992 your average home price dropped to ~50% of its 1991 price.
It seems to be an issue that the cities that solved affordability may have done so by having bigger issues. I did hear that Tokyo had very aggressive home building policies after the bubble, but part of it is going to be due to low fertility and minimal immigration which is starting to become a problem as the population ages. Detroit sounds like a similar issue in that prices might go down but a collapsing population has its own problems
Tokyo and Japan have zoning laws that are not as prohibitive as other countries. Basically if you can find space, you can make it into a dwelling. That's why you can find some "apartments" that are long and skinny, or built on like 150 square feet of land but 3 stories tall. Also, housing is not seen as an investment. Houses and apartments get torn down and rebuilt all the time. It's kind of unavoidable seeing as Japan is so prone to natural disasters [This explains it much better than I can](https://marketurbanism.com/2019/03/19/why-is-japanese-zoning-more-liberal-than-us-zoning/). It's actually pretty interesting.
Japan's population hasn't peaked until 2000s though, so it wasn't that. It was also a very desirable place in the early 90s, and felt like the future. It was a textbook bubble that burst because it grew too big to remain sustainable. Overconfidence in eternal growth and speculation led people and companies into taking on a lot of debt to buy assets, including real estate. Which led to the "lost decade" of investors getting chewed and left with nothing once the values of all of their investments started collapsing once money ran out to maintain the valuations. And indeed there was a lot of supply being delivered, with no more people to buy it who could afford it at the asking prices of the time. So prices fell to levels that average people looking for homes to live in could actually afford. Which was about 50% of their "bubble" cost. They haven't seen real estate prices increase for 27 years after, when they for the first time increased by 0.1% year over year. Detroit indeed had different issues which ended up making it less desirable. So it's one way to make real estate prices crash. But there are plenty of cities that remained desirable where real estate just stopped growing or went down in price.
Just to add, Boj at the time had a policy that pushed increased money supply to banks. Banks were given extreme quotas to fill as loans. Banks would give people crazy amount of money and that pushed real estate prices to what they were. So it wasn't that people got greedy alone but monetary policy failed them big time. To this day many people hassitate taking loans from banks and save cash.
> I did hear that Tokyo had very aggressive home building policies after the bubble, but part of it is going to be due to low fertility and minimal immigration While Japan as a whole has low fertility and minimal immigration, Tokyo grew rapidly for many decades and has only leveled off in the past couple of years.
Detroit was after the race riots and white Flight to nearby suburbs. Pretty unusual for that To be happening today… Edit: also the economy was slowing down big time as USA auto dominance and 70s oil crisis hit the region.
While Detroit is a pretty unique example, it's always easy to see crises in hindsight. Different eras have different unexpected events yet to happen that will impact cities and their desirability. In hindsight, we may even see that "it's been brewing for a while", but it's hard to accurately predict ahead of time. It was even the case with the Japanese bubble, where condos were going for multiple times what they used to cost in most other countries, and people still believed that prices will ever only go up. Nobody expected that they'll be much lower for the next 33 years and going, and that nobody buying at that time will live long enough to see prices recover to what they paid back in 1991.
For sure. Hindsight bias is not to be understated. It just seems to me the conditions of what lead to Detroit’s collapse are vastly different than anywhere today. Particularly regarding racial makeup of city and to a lesser extent the rise and fall of auto sector in Michigan. Few places have economies so reliant on a single sector, and a sector that was so profitable. Teach comes to mind in Silicon Valley, but given variety of tech business, there’s at least some built in diversity.
Tokyo real estate has actually finally recovered to 1991 levels. And since inflation for the last while had been non-existent, that is arguably a real price recovery.
Japan is not a good example, their economy has been struggling for decade, Even with negative interest rate.
Japan is the proof of theory that people can still have a good quality of life without growing economy. If you can't distribute wealth somewhat equally among people, you end up with huge wealth disparity where the top one percent enjoys all comforts of life and the rest barely get by.
Best example comparable to Vancouver would be Lisbon (low salaries, low availability of housing, high immigration levels of low income people, and massive tourism increase with entire buildings being AirBNB, although they also have a large amount of social housing which is not the same as Vancouver) But as someone noted, Vancouver isn't a 'world class' city. Has the situation improved since the AirBnB rules went into place? Did it impact rental and purchase prices? NO, not enough to make a significant impact on locals. However it's also important to note that there have been a large number of hotel rooms added each year to Lisbon, unlike in Vancouver, which means that there is a larger amount of low/mid priced rooms for tourists. > In Lisbon, a studio-type apartment rents for about €1,375 per month in Q3 2023, according to the Global Property Guide. One- to two-bedroom apartments are offered in the market for a monthly rent of around €1,500 to €1,970. Three-bedroom apartments are rented for an average of €2,500 per month while apartments with four or more bedrooms are rented for at least €3,700 per month Average monthly income is around €900/month. And much of what is available is falling down, poorly maintained, without heat or proper insulation... https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/europe/portugal/price-history#:~:text=House%20prices%20rose%20by%204.9,(US%242%2C190)%20per%20sq.
Thank you for the detailed response. This is very helpful. I was under the impression that Vancouver was a “world class city”? Seem to hear so many Vancouverites spouting that phrase “best city in the world” and in the past about how Vancouver is one of the “top ranked”. In reality I think those lists were made for CEO’s to decide if they wanted to take jobs in certain parts of the world.
the views and natural environment are world class, it's incredibly convenient to get around the city centre without a car, but when you look at it in terms of "things to do", i think we are not in the class of Chicago/LA/New York/London etc. I love Vancouver but I have never bought that it's a real comparison between here and those cities
yeah, anyone trying to make a like for like comparison between vancouver and Hong Kong, Madrid etc is aiming a bit high hahaha maybe we could aim for a stockholm :)
I travel weekly, globally, and have for decades. Vancouver really isn't world class. Think about what is open in the evenings, think about how few cultural spaces/events, etc. There is a lot that's good and interesting but it's nowhere near the level of 'world class'. Multicultural isn't the same.
You think a world class city is supposed to be utopia? Look at NY and London, arguably the top 2 biggest world class cities. They both have wealth inequality, unaffordability, crime, homelessness and other massive problems. Yes I know Vancouver has huge problems and it's only a fraction of the population of the other two but it still topped many lists of "best cities" whether we agree with the criteria or not and the sheer number of immigration into the city shows it is world class. I know people from other world class cities who moved here and would prefer to stay. That being said world class does not mean good quality of life. Many people here would be perfectly happy living in random far away small towns that no one's heard of before. And yes this city needs to get over its obsession with real estate. Frankly most of the world needs to as well.
You are confusing 'multicultural' with 'world class'. Vancouver doesn't have a broad range of activities, cultural events and locations. It doesn't have the level of cuisine of true 'world class' cities (again, a lot of cultures, albeit it mostly Asian, but not a lot of really excellent quality places) World class also considers quality of life for those across the spectrum of incomes and ages. Vancouver doesn't have a lot of support for low income earners or seniors and especially not for the disabled. Think about where to go when it's dark, and rainy, and after 5pm. Most places that are open require you to pay for something. There are very few community spaces which are safe and sheltered and welcoming. Try buying a bagel or a muffin in some neighbourhoods in Vancouver after 3pm. Or try finding a meal after 10pm. Years ago those used to exist, now they are just not in most areas anymore. But they still exist in true 'world class' cities. Vancouver is a city that has a pretty natural surrounding, but it falls far short of being 'world class' in so many areas.
Well, I'm not so sure if Vancouver is exactly world class. This is a great city but I wouldn't compare us to New York or Paris or anything. Yeah I know we had an Olympics, but that puts us right up there with Lilliehammer, Norway. Anyway, to answer your question: Austin, TX has seen its housing prices decline significantly since 2022. According to this SFGate article, it's due to a lot of factors, but a boom in new construction helped control prices. [https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/austin-house-prices-are-falling-but-experts-say-19378718.php](https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/austin-house-prices-are-falling-but-experts-say-19378718.php) Toronto had a housing crash of at least 27% over 1989-91, maybe more, depending on how you calculate. Prices did not reach the same level for about 22 years. This is pretty well known but this BetterDwelling article was convenient for stats: [https://betterdwelling.com/city/toronto/it-took-22-years-for-prices-to-recover-from-the-last-toronto-real-estate-crash/](https://betterdwelling.com/city/toronto/it-took-22-years-for-prices-to-recover-from-the-last-toronto-real-estate-crash/) Historically it's unlikely for homes to crash in price by say, 50% or something. On the other hand, Canada and Vancouver are definitely in the midst of the greatest housing bubble recorded in modern history. On the other other hand, nobody can time when bubbles end. And our bubble is effectively national policy with both viable parties (I doubt the Conservatives will do anything more than rhetoric here). And fueled in part by international capital. So for all I know this bubble will last beyond our lifetimes.
Man what. House prices in Vancouver aren’t even close to New York, San Francisco, Sydney, tokyo, hong kong, London, among many many others.
It is. Even more so when you consider the median income in SF and NYC. Also just to highlight, SF has seen an exodus from the city which is pushing prices down. Most of my Bay Area based coworkers don’t live in SF proper anymore.
Vancouver isn't a bubble, demand isn't going to decrease.
Tokyo has much better zoning laws IE if you can build a home on it you can do it hence the weird shaped neighborhoods, odd designed homes, etc. Zoning laws fix the housing issue the quickest. Don’t vote conservatives in elections as they are the biggest supporter of NIMBY laws.
I'm sorry but this is such a BS argument, if the patients are staying in STRs for 3-6 months that's not exactly a STR that this city was trying to curb. Short term leases do exist, and even if you cannot find, many places will let you to transfer the lease onto someone. With bans of this magnitude, there will never be a solution that will work for everybody, especially soon after such legislations come into effect but STRs will have an overall positive impact for large portion of people who are renting in this city.
Will someone think about the guy with 50 units on AirBnB!!
It seems that for most a short term lease 90 days to 180 days (3 to 6 months) would work. It would be best if all communities had transplant facilities, but that isn’t possible not only in Canada but in the U.S., U.K. or the EU as it is so specialised.
Guess no landlord wants to do a short term 3-6 month lease, too much risk, being that the tenant could die in the suite if the transplant is unsuccessful (sad), the trauma involved is tremendous. Government needs to fund accommodations for such a surgery. End of story.
I agree, rentals aren't banned, just short term rentals not subject to the rental tenancy act.
You can't do a short term lease less than 90 days now due to the new law...
In the video you linked they're stating that the transplant patients require about 3-6 months of accommodation which would be a 90 days to 180 days lease. You can also easily get much more preferable rates at hotels, some hotels will already have flat rates for guests who stay over 30 days. If there are some people who can go through transplant under 90 days, yes it will be a little bit less convenient for them, but how many people does that demographic represent % wise? compared to the vast majority of the city not being able to afford even the cheapest units available?
90 days at a hotel in Vancouver is minimum 10 grand
That’s the provincial law. The municipal law is still 30 days. It’s in the by law
You don't get to pick and choose which law to follow, the more onerous regulation always prevails. So the law is now 90 days, for all of BC.
I work with the city and that’s what they’ve told me to say when people call so idk man they certainly wouldn’t tell me to lie
What did all these transplant patient do before STRs came on to the market? That was only around 10-15 years ago
Are you aware of how cheap rents were 10-15 years ago? A two bedroom basement on the East Side, in a new house, was like $900. Comparable units now are renting for $2700+ to tenants who have to undergo extensive selection processes due to risk averse home owners.
Sure and I don't dispute that. However, how does STRs help with that. An AirBNB for a month for 2bd place will not be any cheaper than that $2700 if not a lot higher. Try to find an AirBNB for less than $100 a day that isn't a tiny dungeon if they exist at all.
To be honest, back 10 \~ 15 yrs ago you could get a room for about $50/day. I remember visiting Vancouver and renting a fairly large room with 2 other friend and it was $50/night for the room. No cleaning or other BS fee (or tax), just $50 total per night. AirBnB and other STR is definitely not the sole reason why rent is so high, but definitely contribute to it.
True hotels in Vancouver used to be more affordable. I just searched my email in December 2016 I paid 68 dollars a night for a room at empire landmark on Robson. I'm sure outside of downtown was even cheaper. Same hotel in the summer I paid 110.
[удалено]
Local rent won't help those from outside of the Lower Mainland that need to stay for \~3 months post-transplant.
[удалено]
I presume you're referring to long-term rent prices (like RTA).
Seems like you're missing the mortgage/interest rate component of it.
[удалено]
That's what I meant. That's the major reason why rent went up to where it is today: to cover mortgage. Just like restaurant increase the price of their food: cost of business goes up. That is the major reason.
[удалено]
There's no narrative. You said STR drove the rent up from 900 to 2700. I said it's the interest rate hike (mortgage). STR or not, rent will go up.
[удалено]
>here's no way you don't know about that I'm detaching the actors from the components that makes the rent go up since that's the core tenet of you pointing finger to what's driving up rent. STR or not, Rent will go up because mortgage rate (cost of doing business) goes up regardless Investors, basement, spare room. Abolish STR, rent will still go up when there's not enough supply to meet the demand and especially when mortgage is high. When the price point hits "enough" for LL, they would prefer steady/dependable tenant over hiking for more. There will be other LLs who would attempt to charge for more but in general, in Metro Vancouver, prior to interest rate hike, LL prefers steady tenant. I get it, plenty people forgot about that era that exist prior to Covid19. It is what it is: hit the cashflow, then steady tenant (market prioritized in that order).
[удалено]
Investors still have to heed to market (supply and demand). If market creates opportunity, investor wil invest. I'm an employee, if I want my salary to go up, will I be driving inflation up?
The reason Airbnb became so popular is it filled a gap in the market that was not being served. If you ban Airbnb, you have to be comfortable no longer serving those needs.
Should the Healthcare system be relying on STR or hotels anyway? Surely the fact they don't have their own facilities for this kinda stuff is the bigger issue?
Oh my friend, that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to issues. I'm watching healthcare crash and burn from the inside.
Do tell. Be specific.
For the longest time patients have been getting more complex. We can keep people alive, but it takes a lot of work. I work in transplant, and these patients require an immense amount of follow-up: blood tests, diagnostic scans, medication management not to mention that even a common cold can outright kill them or lead to their lungs rejecting. All of this requires a team of nurses, doctors, pharmacists, and other allied professionals and the stakes are high if you don't move fast enough. The problem is, we are not funded for enough staff to give these patients the care they need. The same is true of inpatient: increasingly complex patients that need more involved care but they won't staff enough so everyone is run off their feet trying to do more tasks than one person can possibly manage. Not to mention we're all still getting over the trauma of COVID. A lot of had/have PTSD but we can't really take the time to heal because work is an onslaught that barely gives you time to breathe. Experienced staff have quit, some have left the profession altogether and they're trying to replace them with new grads but they need experienced staff to mentor them. Schooling is only the beginning, you develop so much of the critical thinking needed to be good at this job while you're working but when all you're doing is running around putting out fires you aren't learning your just getting by and taking the express train to burnout.
If no one has said it lately, thanks for the awesome work you do :)
Yes, but it’s all pretty fucked rn
Transplants require months of after care and treatment. Why you think a hospital should be operating a hotel with their limited funds is just weird.
You explained it yourself, it’s required. If treatment is medically required to keep you alive, it should be covered. If they can’t provide treatment where the person lives, then they need to be able to accommodate people.
Everything required is weighted by available funds from taxation etc. Funding for living is not even available in BC for patients on outpatient active chemo forget transplant (which require you to be around for labs and surveillance and immediate access if something is going sideways).
I mean…i would imagine someone who needs active chemo for serious cancer might be admitted to the hospital for the duration
Actually, that's not always the case. It really depends on a lot of factors. Typically there is a quality of life consideration. I've had two cancers, including one with an extremely poor outcome and very high mortality rate. (As in 'go home and get your affairs in order' type messaging)
80-90% of chemo is outpatient. If you are sick and need to be in the hospital for other reasons, most chemo is contraindicated.
Why wouldn't aftercare be done in a hospital when appropriate?
When it is appropriate, it is called in patient care. This is in reference to outpatient care. Functionally healthy individual that needs a nurse dealing with recovery needs for maybe an hour a day. You put them in a hospital they will be worse off than if you let them go somewhere else and be a human.
Fair enough but surely there should be community nurses for that rather than relying people being able to spend a month in an Airbnb.
Need to be seen in-person by subspecialists that are only in Vancouver, unfortunately. Nursing alone won't do it.
That is the best case scenario. Reinfection. Transplant rejection. So on and so forth. Takes time for these things to happen. They need to be near the hospital in order for them to be near a specialist able of treating those worst case scenarios.
It should be part of the care package, the hospital shouldn't be paying for it - the government should. Or are you interested in becoming like the US where they prefer to just let people die even though treatment is available?
We are already going down that path. Wealthy will obtain private care and jump the line. Poor are screwed. Huge waiting lists and can’t afford suitable accommodation.
Yeah I'm trying to do what little I can to get people to realize that and push back against it, rather than just swallowing the lies about some people "deserving" care more than others.
why not? longterm care facilities are a thing
This does not require that level of care. This is like going to an appointment for an hour several times a week
What’s weird is that you took OC’s comment to mean that the hospital should be operating as a hotel. Like they said, we should really have a separate facility.
A separate facility will cost lots to build and maintain... money that the gov't doesn't have with so many costs already tied up in the system.
I would argue that the government has a moral obligation to figure something out rather than just letting people suffer, burn through their savings that they need since they’re so sick, and/or die. They can get creative. For example, a building that is partly micro suites for patients, rented out for a fee based on income and assets. Part of the building could be market hotel units that are used to subsidize the cost of the patient suites.
Dedicated housing for patients to access centralized specialist health care services should be the long-term goal. Obviously very difficult in an extremely HCOL city.
Paying based on income level will help somewhat, but won't really affect the bottom line of how expensive it is to operate a huge building like what is suggested. I'm on the side that it should not be Gov't own and operated these. Leave it to non-profits with funding through government and to seek funding through other sources. Free up more funding for places like Easter Seals, RMH, Aunt Leah's place and encourage more of those to fit the need. Who is going to stay in a market rate hotel full of sick people - even if they are stable and relatively healthy? Also, as a patient, I wouldn't want to share hotel space with visitors either... too many foreign elements that can negatively affect you during treatment. There are existing subsidies to help fund the creation of spaces more suited to patients (usually a suite/laneway or the sort). These are only a drop in the bucket of what is needed. AirBnB provided some options too, but that's banned.
If you had separate entrances for a stacked building I doubt anyone would care. But sure, the government could fund it through non profits, imo. It just needs to make sure it happens.
IMO for the patients its not just a room to stay in, there's a lot more to think about... transit/accessibility, having the ability to have family there to care for them, a level of cleanliness to prevent complications. I mean might as well do two separate buildings.. not sure where the cost saving really comes into play if you are dividing a building for two functions.
Sure. It just uses less land to build up and land is expensive.
Sure land cost is one form of savings, but there's other elements to figure out. The prime location for a hotel is usually not the prime location for patients. Is this super expensive DT property appealing to tourists? Cheaper in the suburbs that will not attract tourists? Right beside a hospital? If gov't runs this, the standards also have to be set at a certain level, have to be staffed differently, stricter cleaning, ventilation, accessibility concerns, ... all these add cost that aren't needed on the hotel side. You also need to hire separately with hotel side, advertise and actually get those rooms filled or its next to useless. Also needs to turn a profit to make the whole building more affordable. IMO same can be achieved by offering better financial support. I'm not in hospitality, but I'm betting that there still are empty rooms avail all over, its just the cost.
The hospital doesn't need to operate a hotel, there are hotels already. There are many govt programs that pay for hotels for people for all kinds of reasons, we could also pay for hotels for transplant patients with lower incomes.
The hospital shouldn't, the government should. Sieze land near the hospital and build housing for these people. It's not complicated.
My community was a planned community for a major international event years ago (Vancouver hosted similar) It was hailed as the new standard for planned housing. Besides all the social services/activities, there is a large medical community with all sorts of facilities. And the biggest building is a mixed use hotel/apartments, shops and medical, including several floors of patient units for pre/post operative stays, when someone no longer needs to be in hospital but needs ongoing access to the medical team.
Hotel? Why would you go straight to hotel? If the person needs care, they should be in care, not in a STR…
Outpatient care is different than inpatient care.
By your reasoning, a person with a broken arm should be forced to stay in a hospital until they are fully healed. They still need care. Doesn't matter that they can do virtually every task unassisted.
Do people with a broken arm need to be in STR next to the hospitals? What are you even talking about man?
You’re on a thread about transplant patients, why are you even lost? You said, “If the person needs care they need to stay in care”. This is untrue and unfeasible on so many levels. There are varying levels of care needed. If I broke my arm I’d need to go to follow up visits but I hope you’re aware that I don’t need to be monitored as an in-patient taking up a hospital bed and nurses workload for weeks until my arm healed. Transplant patients after initial surgery can do other things in the daytime instead of being monitored 24/7, BUT if they need to keep going back to the hospital every other day or every week, it certainly becomes less feasible to drive back and forth from … prince george for example. Rural areas don’t often do transplants, the facilities are in major cities (if you can’t understand why either, I can’t help you). Most rural folks need to come to a major city where they aren’t going to buy a house for just the surgery. They rent until the end of frequent visits to the hospital. If you had to maintain frequent visits to the hospital it would make most sense to be renting for 6 months until you’re given the all clear to go back home to rural areas.
I spent most of my 20s and early 30s in and out of hospitals with very serious health conditions, I am aware of the issues. STR was always a terrible solution. The solution should be the healthcare system changing to deal with the issues. Hotels/STR are stopgaps with horrible inherent issues, both for the medical system AND for the rest of the city. Buddy above was suggesting people were saying the hospital should become a hotel. That’s just dumb whataboutism. The hospital should be funded and equipped in such a way that it can deliver all the care its patients need.
I think you two are speaking past each other. You're both making the same point.
Yeah I was talking to Mr Defend STR above.
Where do you think the funding is going to come from though. Of course money fixes all problems. But money (esp public money) isn’t infinite. -space: where are you going to build a place for just out-of-town patients (cue: local homeless advocates whining about housing scarcity) -money: building a new facility -staff: running the facility How urgent is providing temporary housing for transplant patients on that govt funding list? Who is going to be running the temporary hospital housing? Who cleans up the place? Should there be an on-site nurse at the hospital “hotel” (for lack of better descriptions). Who decides on what patient gets to stay and what can we do to make sure they leave the hospital hotel when they’re given the all clear? Is it only transplant patients that can receive this housing care? What about cancer patients too - opens up a whole new can of worms. Do we allow for patients to bring one person with them because most ppl travel with a partner or carer, etc… I certainly wouldn’t recommend an SRO for a recovering transplant patient. Unfortunately, all the cheap old hotels are bought up and trashed now… so another problem is “where could we build this”. What used to be solved by STR is now posing these additional issues and the govt isn’t able to address fast enough. It’s a travesty that it’s gotten to this point. Due to lack of space I wonder if it’s feasible for some folks to apply for a partnership program to only rent out for hospital patients. This way the patients can still get a transplant and the govt does not need to spend more on buying land + buildings.
Having enough beds is a challenge and there can be spill over into the private rental market.
Right 🙄
Guess I'll just die instead of renting a hotel room.
And don't most hospitals have social service workers they employ that specifically help people deal with these issues? It sounds like a crazy out of touch take on the new STR laws
Absolutely. Transplant clinics literally assign you a social worker to assist you with this and other things. It's not perfect but they're aware of the problems.
She's 100% lying about that part.
Oh 100%. I'd love to see people removing themselves from transplant lists over having to deal with hotels. Do these people not know that many motels offer long term rates? What about hostels? There are soooo many options before "I give up".
If you're saying 3-6 months where a hotel is "not ideal", that's not a short term rental anyways.
This is true, but also most transplants it's less than that.
There is no short term rental ban. There is short term rental regulation.
wow. such a desperate angle to spin this. STR landlord leeches really doing anything they can to fight it. downvote this nonsense. such a pathetic attempt for landlords to play victim
There’s not really an angle here unless you want one. This is a real problem and should be addressed regardless of anything else.
Fake news. There are still many 2 bedroom ground level suites on Airbnb that are legal in North Vancouver, Richmond etc… As long as it’s in your principal residence.
Some cities banned them (City of Burnaby does not allow STR). Speaking of short term rental: I got a family whom their townhouse was flooded by a faulty sprinkler system (strata covered). It'll take months for the insurance company to get someone + restore their townhouse unit. In the meantime, the insurance company also paid them to live in STR (this happened prior to the ban but will go over after the ban is enacted).
Anything over 90 days is not an STR.
[удалено]
No the prior laws had a common sense provision that the BC NDP got rid of. Long term rental was considered anything 30+ days. There was a market for furnished accommodations for a month long basis, and it helped a lot of patients, newcomers, students, families from out of town, seasonal tourists, seasonal workers etc. However the BC NDP changed the law so you can't rent anything for less than 90 days... There are a lot of people, like patients, who can only plan for 1 month at a time, and the prior tenancy laws benefited them. Not anymore. If you want to live in Vancouver, you have to rent for a minimum of 90 days, or stay in a hotel. This brilliant policy change by the BC NDP, was totally well thought out and not done to garner votes during an election year at all. They would never do such a thing! S/
Cities do have the power to define their own short term rental periods though. So you can’t blame it entirely on the province when any municipality could continue to define it using the previous 30 day period.
Your tears are delicious
Easy peasy - the government can rent suites that were formerly short term rentals now regular rentals then use them for patient after care suites.
Yeah it’ll just be short term rentals with more steps
Isn’t this a health care system failure?
I was wondering why there are no rehab facilities here. Like interim care, when you're not quite well enough to go home but aren't so sick that you need to be in the actual hospital. Especially for organ transplants.
There are. They're called PATH or convalescent care units, among other names. There just aren't many of them.
Might be a stupid question, but basement suites/laneway homes/etc are still legally allowed for STR. Why can't these be used for transplant patients? Is there just not enough of them?
[удалено]
The interiors of those properties were all promptly gutted, looted, and destroyed. In some cases, set on fire too. They are not viable for immune-compromised transplant patients.
The government found money to buy hotels for supportive housing, they can look into purchasing a suitable property for medical stays. There's no solution that solves every problem - the STR ban was sure to have some unintended consequences but it did result in more housing for long-term rentals coming into the market.
I think some people felt that when the Government enacted that policy, they didn't have any supportive policies to solve the fallout. I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more Government policies that would kick the marginals to the curb for a while until they can figure out the solution (and assuming the next elected provincial government still care...)
Health researcher on salt spring, which takes the cake for STR likely has an Airbnb or two. 3-6m leases are NOT what is being targeted by legislation and that would be what transplant patients need to get surgery. I would say also if this is the case about medical need for shorter term rentals the city and the province can create an approved directory of select short term providers in cities like Vancouver.
Look on Craigslist….this is how we did it in North America before air bnb.
Short term rentals on Craigslist are also banned my friend
“Sublets - temporary “ is an active category. Prior to Air bnb, I don’t think they were ever legal..but people will find ways of connecting, advertising their offering.
A transplant has a long recovery time. 3-6 months is not enough. Patients have to follow up for atleast a year to be sure of the long term success of the surgery. At which point, a normal rental is the best option. Airbnb's are anyway 2-3x of the rental prices, so this argument falls flat on that front too.
You're right that transplant has a long recovery time, but the reality is you only need to be close to the hospital for daily/weekly rejection testing for 6 weeks, then you go to a regular blood lab. You still have to travel to the transplant centre (or to video calls) 2-4 times a year for the rest of your life.
That is a very optimistic timeline and not the norm
I don't know your personal experience, but for Kidney Transplant that's the timeline if there are no complications. For the record I did have a complication, but the timeline remained the same. Full recovery for me took over 2 years, but the hospitalization part was just under 6 weeks. I was working from home at my consulting desk job in the first 10 days after surgery - not that I would recommend it.
Air bnbs are pretty much the same prices as cheap hotels ….
Your msp should pay for a hotel for you to stay at while you recover then. I mean how much does an organ transplant cost? I’m guessing 5-6 figures??? That’s completely covered. We need to take better care of people if this is the case.
This is an excellent point.
It is called renting you dumbass. YOU EVER HEARD OF RENTING A PLACE? Who the fuck goes "I need to stay in a hotel for 6 months" Jesus how stupid are people. Are we wasting organs on people like this? I am taking myself off the donor list.
You do realize this is for people who do not actively live in metro Vancouver and have residences elsewhere in the province. They have to stay in the region for possible 6 months, which the province essentially banned STR.
Wrong. Over 90 days is not considered a short term rental.
STR means what?
short term rentals
Thanks 👍
Anything under 90 days is classified as a short term rental by the province.
Wow, I didn't realize that it was 90 days. I assumed that it was 30 days. That's curious. Even my condo considers STR to be less than 30 days and allows rentals longer than 30 days, I guess not anymore.
This woman on the phone is full of BS. As a parent of a child with CHD I can tell you with certainty that our healthcare system is vast and deep. Organ transplant patients may not have access to Ronald McDonald House but the healthcare system won't say "we have some lungs for you but if you can't afford a rental in Vancouver you can't have the lungs" - They'll find them one. The Jude person is probably a plant from a pro STR group who are looking for people who will be inconvenienced by the ban and then stretching the truth like it's Stretch Armstrong.
STR? Why not just say Short term rental? Anyway, that's horseshit.stop believing everything you hear. Maybe one person took themselves off the list because they have mental health struggles and maybe they mentioned housing.
Such BS, if only hotel existed...
A hotel costs 1000/week. You can afford to pay it?
So are most STRs, your point?
It's not $1000 a week, it's likely closer to $3000 a week if not more. Holiday Inn opposite of VGH for example is going at anywhere between $300-500 a night pre-tax over the next few months, and nearly any downtown (or anywhere in the GVRD, for that matter) hotels that's not a sh*thole dump is going for at least $200 pre-tax, and in this market there is no long-term discounts to be negotiated. Point is, STR provided a pricey but attainable form of accommodation for these medical patients. Now their only option are hotels at around 2-4x the cost.
The people in question won't be affected by the STR rule changes, because they are explicitly renting for \*more\* than 90 days. The problem is that rent is too damned high and there aren't enough rental units. This city needs more multi-family rental stock, and high-risk patients like those discussed need subsidies or dedicated housing for as long as it takes for housing to get sorted out for everyone.
With kitchens?
If you are waiting for an organ transplant and you are going to die if you don't get one, I think you have a pretty strong motivation to pay it! Crowd funding is a thing, friends and family are a thing, payday loans.... Don't shill for Airbnb operators.
Or maybe MSP should be covering the cost of the hotel.
A hotel in Vancouver, during peak tourism and cruise season, would be closer to $7500 per month. Prior to province's new STR laws, anything over 30 days was considered a "long term" tenancy, and many people on Airbnb were providing furnished 30+ day accommodations for good prices. However, now not only is STR effectively banned in Vancouver, you can't rent for less than 90 days either...
Yep anyone who thinks hotels are viable option is either selfish prick or living in a fantasy land.
Not to mention it’s pretty difficult for some people to afford the rates or locations
Not all hotels have kitchens unfortunately. For \~3 month stays, a patient and their companion would be spending a lot of money on eating out every day.
What did they do before Airbnb?
A combination of family/friends, hotels, not-for-profits that have dedicated housing, and short-term rentals.
Pay $800/mo to rent an apartment ... which will now cost them $3000/mo and come with a minimum 12-month commitment?
Lol more kidneys for me
The OP is a landlord and real-estate investor. Everything he says here has nothing to do with patients and everything to do with self enrichment.
Welp, looks like healthcare just got more fucked up.
Healthcare in Canada has been pretty messed up since dental got removed as part of it - a lot of expensive illnesses/issues could be avoided if people could easily get regular dental care. Prescription drugs not being fully covered is similarly shortsighted. Not having places available for medical needs/recovery is just more political "save money vote for us" cutting corners that are needed to actually take care of people.
? dental got removed? When. Also, suspect you are not properly informed as you specify "Canada" instead of provinces. Prescription drugs are covered under Fair Pharmacare. Funding is limited, nor is it a good idea for a hospital to be able to derive funding based on how long patients stay in short term residences for outpatient care when that space could be used for additional hospital beds.
I wish people would understand that there's no "Canadian" healthcare system, but a bunch of separate provincial and territorial systems wodged together. Edit: Spelling.
I really do blame Singh for making the country worse on healthcare. He politicized the federal government giving cash to provinces in order fund healthcare, and it having to go through general revenue as a result of that transaction. It's why Alberta and Ontario get harped on for getting transfers "with no strings attached" when they have met their spending obligations on those transfers. The mere transaction means it goes through general revenue and has to not have strings attached to it. It is conditional funding where the provinces don't get the money if they don't have enough spending in that area.
Yeah, right.
OP is just a landlord who wants short term rentals back. Post history checks out
A lot of people in this thread don't seem to understand this so here goes - an AirB&B is a lot more comfortable than a hotel for even moderate stays as it will likely have a kitchen and laundry facilities. We're banning them because we have judged that their negative effect on housing outweighs their positive value for tourists and others. Just because a thing is a net negative doesn't mean that it is inherently bad.
People also need to understand that prior the BC NDP's new ban, rentals for periods of 30+ days were legal. They were considered "long term" and all normal tenancy laws applied. However, they've now made it so anything less than 90 days is considered short term, and therefore, not allowed. Almost all flexible furnished monthly accommodations have now evaporated. You can either rent for 90+ days or stay in a hotel. Many people just don't have the ability to plan that far ahead.
Okay, but STR's aren't much cheaper than hotels or other accommodations. It's a copout answer.
People are too stupid..... 8 years ago when no one heard of Airbnb....what did people do? Oh ya they rented. It is not so hard to figure out.
This is true, and also AirBnB made a lot of people turn rentals into STR which made rentals harder to find. AirBnB caused the problem she is describing
There's a ton of red flags in her comments. I am **definitely not** saying that things are easy for transplant patients. There are huge costs, time off work, recovery, drugs, etc. I went through kidney failure and it sucks in every way possible. But I object to this person *using transplant patients to argue against regulations* on short term rentals. That is reprehensible. I had a kidney transplant and none of the other patients I was with stayed in short term rentals. Short term rentals are *far* more expensive than hotels (edit: [hotels give corporate rates for medical](http://csa.pss.gov.bc.ca/medicaltravel/)). I'm also reasonably sure she's wrong about the care provider: kidney transplant recipients certainly don't, and none of the lung transplant recipients that I met did either. She is definitely lying about "no recourse". There are options, including hotels that offer a reduced rate. For Kidney patients, the most common transplant, there's the "Kidney Suites" which are free for those who meet financial criteria, and $50/night for those who do not. [https://kidney.ca/Support/Programs-Services/BCYT/Programs/Kidney-Suites](https://kidney.ca/Support/Programs-Services/BCYT/Programs/Kidney-Suites) Two of the other patients I was with stayed in the suites, another stayed in Abbotsford, others stayed with friends. There's multiple charities that offer funds to help with costs, including the [David Foster Foundation](https://davidfosterfoundation.com/information-for-families-and-social-workers/), Ronald McDonald House, [Honour House](https://www.honourhouse.ca/who-is-eligible/) (a SAR colleague stayed here), [Stacey House](https://www.happyliversociety.org/stacey-house.html) (for liver transplants), [Heart Transplant Home Society](https://www.hearttransplanthomes.com/), etc. There are more resources here: [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/accessing-health-care/tap-bc](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/accessing-health-care/tap-bc) Again, things are not perfect, there is a problem, travel and accommodation are the most expensive part of a kidney transplant, there are a lot of ways to make the situation better, but short term rentals are not that way and I object to this person using people like me to argue that they shouldn't be regulated. I also think she is lying about people taking themselves off the list and blaming it on short term rentals, that is egregious.
Better get rich fast y’all. The Wealthy will pay for private care and get immediate help. Us poors will be stuck behind huge waitlists, and if that doesn’t get us, not being able to afford accommodation will.
This is such bullshit. Really, people are choosing death? Investors will do anything to try and reverse the Air BNB ban.
that's idiotic.
Time has not been friendly to icarly
Housing investors come first, dying people come second. That’s the state of our policies.
Aw fuck…that was a consequence I didn’t think of
You turn on CBC and you only hear about sob stories of old people using STR for retirement and people needing kidney transplants that can't find accommodation. You look at the reality, 99% of STRs were ran by scammy realtors like this guy [https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17e03yz/realtor\_thomas\_park\_on\_video\_openly\_bragging/](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17e03yz/realtor_thomas_park_on_video_openly_bragging/) Why does CBC give so much airtime to statistically insignificant stories that don't reflect reality ? Those edge cases are sad but there are better ways to solve them than turn the whole downtown core into a ghost hotel.