Cost of housing in Canada

[IKnowNothing]

Nice try but incorrect...

What's incorrect? Want to post a link to the actual article- I didn't see it in the last few months, including in the most recent article with the following excerpts:

Staff reviewed all the work they did on the draft report including where four units as of right will be permitted, the definition of a fourplex, the allowance for three parking spaces for four units, and no regulation for a maximum number of bedrooms. Much of the rules will remain the same, including current standards for setbacks, building size and driveway width

Staff made notes and offered a few of their own as they repeatedly pointed out that this was not a planning free for all; fourplexes will still have to fit a certain building envelope on it’s property, and they will still need to be reviewed for proper servicing, traffic management and other standard planning reviews, even if the project in question conforms to the zoning onsite.

Sounds familiar.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Fair on the fourplexes but if you are living in a "detached" neighbourhood the character changes if people start knocking down single family dwellings and putting up fourplexes instead.

There's an unresolved tension between the property rights of people who bought into a neighbourhood with the expectation of maintaining its character and the property rights of people who want to make a profit selling to a developer and moving out.

 

[Kirkhill]

There's an unresolved tension between the property rights of people who bought into a neighbourhood with the expectation of maintaining its character and the property rights of people who want to make a profit selling to a developer and moving out.

The issue is ultimately one of choice. When you buy you choose the property based on terms and conditions and expectations. When terms, conditions and expectations change then the original contract is abrogated. If somebody wants to buy up an area and turn it into higher density housing that is their prerogative. I don't want to live there. Had I wanted to live in that type of community I have had ample opportunity to do so in the past.

If the city wants to change the terms of our agreement it can buy me out.

 

[IKnowNothing]

There's an unresolved tension between the property rights of people who bought into a neighbourhood with the expectation of maintaining its character and the property rights of people who want to make a profit selling to a developer and moving out.

The issue is ultimately one of choice. When you buy you choose the property based on terms and conditions and expectations. When terms, conditions and expectations change then the original contract is abrogated. If somebody wants to buy up an area and turn it into higher density housing that is their prerogative. I don't want to live there. Had I wanted to live in that type of community I have had ample opportunity to do so in the past.

And if you don't like the way things change you can exercise your right to sell.


"Your freedom to do reasonable things with your property ends with my wishes"
Bringing "property rights" as argument for exclusionary zoning is pretty close to the height of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Kirkhill]

And if you don't like the way things change you can exercise your right to sell.


"Your freedom to do reasonable things with your property ends with my wishes"
Bringing "property rights" as argument for exclusionary zoning is pretty close to the height of cognitive dissonance.

Before or after the value of the property drops due to government action?

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Your freedom to do reasonable things with your property ends with my wishes"
Bringing "property rights" as argument for exclusionary zoning is pretty close to the height of cognitive dissonance.

No more so than if the city permitted a commercial/industrial operation to move into the neighbourhood and start depositing soot all over everyone's houses and lawns.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Before or after the value of the property drops due to government action?

Whenever you choose. It's your right. But why are you assuming the value is dropping? Are developers knocking down your neighbour's house for fun or as the most profitable use of the land?

 

[IKnowNothing]

No more so than if the city permitted a commercial/industrial operation to move into the neighbourhood and start depositing soot all over everyone's houses and lawns.

Yes. That's 100% the same thing as allowing the exact same size of residential building to be built following the same regulations but allowing it to house 4 families instead of one large one.

Those damn poors depositing soot all over the lawns.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes. That's 100% the same thing as allowing the exact same size of residential building to be built following the same regulations but allowing it to house 4 families instead of one large one.

Those damn poors depositing soot all over the lawns.

It's not exactly the same thing in means. But the ends - things that erode property values - are the same, and that's the point.

 

[IKnowNothing]

It's not exactly the same thing in means. But the ends - things that erode property values - are the same, and that's the point.

They might erode values, or they might not. Shouldn't the market decide? The best (reasonable) use of residentially zoned serviced land?

 

[Brad Sallows]

They might erode values, or they might not. Shouldn't the market decide? The best (reasonable) use of residentially zoned serviced land?

The market doesn't decide zoning restrictions, which are "the rules" when people buy into a neighbourhood. And then changes are political decisions.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The market doesn't decide zoning restrictions, which are "the rules" when people buy into a neighbourhood. And then changes are political decisions.

Granted. But the market decides what happens within those restrictions. And you believe that free-er markets better allocate scarce resources yes?
So as such any shift towards more market freedom- such as enabling greater choice in the residential structures that can be built within the regulatory building envelope of a given residential zone (height/lot coverage/ setbacks) - would result in a more efficient use of the scarce resource that is urban residential land, and as such is something to be encouraged?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Granted. But the market decides what happens within those restrictions. And you believe that free-er markets better allocate scarce resources yes?

Yes, within the constraints of predictable/stable contracts and the associated laws.

So as such any shift towards more market freedom- such as enabling greater choice in the residential structures that can be built within the regulatory building envelope of a given residential zone (height/lot coverage/ setbacks) - would result in a more efficient use of the scarce resource that is urban residential land, and as such is something to be encouraged?

Yes. If there are real losses to anyone, those should be "socialized". Governments have a bad habit of allowing costs of their policies to be privatized.

 

[eliminator]

Interesting option being considered:

Trudeau government announces 'halal mortgages.' Here's what they are

In a bid to increase access to homeownership, Canada's federal budget mentioned 'halal mortgages'. Here's what that means

nationalpost.com

Trudeau government announces 'halal mortgages.' Here's what they are​

The federal budget mentions the creation of halal mortgages as a means to 'enable Muslim Canadians, and other diverse communities, to further participate in the housing market'

 

[Brad Sallows]

Interesting option being considered:

Trudeau government announces 'halal mortgages.' Here's what they are​

The federal budget mentions the creation of halal mortgages as a means to 'enable Muslim Canadians, and other diverse communities, to further participate in the housing market'

Not very interesting. They come up with some other mechanism for paying the lender's profit and risk premium, which is all that interest is for, and reportedly the alternatives are all more expensive (because the risk is greater). If it happens that any of the products is actually cheaper, I'd expect everyone to start using them.

 

[Jarnhamar]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[mariomike]

Whatever one's opinion, it looks like a lot of new towers are going up.

October 17, 2023

A new Crane Index report from Rider Levett Bucknall found that in the third quarter of 2023, Toronto had a staggering 240 cranes in the city. Not only is this the most out of all other North American cities measured — well outpacing second-place Seattle's 45 cranes — but it's about two times the 121 cranes seen in the first quarter of 2020.

Feel Like Toronto Has Way More Cranes Than It Used To? That's Because They've Doubled

Whether you're for it or against it, every Torontonian can agree it feels like there's now a new towering development going up on every block. As it turns out, that sense of increased high-rise development is entirely justified, as Toronto has now doubled its number of cranes compared to before...

storeys.com

 

[YZT580]

Whenever you choose. It's your right. But why are you assuming the value is dropping? Are developers knocking down your neighbour's house for fun or as the most profitable use of the land?

they are knocking down the neighbour's house because it is cheaper by far to put two residences or more onto a city lot than it is to install the new infrastructure required to expand the city outwards. For the same reasons it is cheaper for the developer to pay the city a sum in lieu of instead of allocating land for parks and recreation. A park takes up the building space for what maybe 4 houses? That is a lot of profit for the developer since the funds he gives the town generally equal the costs on 1 or at most 2 lots. Building quick is easy, just buy up the houses as they come available and double the density. Making a community is a whole lot harder and there are very few communities being built.

 

[lenaitch]

The issue is ultimately one of choice. When you buy you choose the property based on terms and conditions and expectations. When terms, conditions and expectations change then the original contract is abrogated. If somebody wants to buy up an area and turn it into higher density housing that is their prerogative. I don't want to live there. Had I wanted to live in that type of community I have had ample opportunity to do so in the past.

If the city wants to change the terms of our agreement it can buy me out.

Implied or informal terms and conditions, and even they have limits. I don't recall any kind of 'contract', legal or social, between me and the municipality in any place I lived. I agreed to pay property taxes and they agreed to let me. The only sure-fire way to control the land around you is to own it, and even that has limits. "Change' can be so subjective. People who back onto a road or a railway right-of-way have little grounds to complain if the use of either changes from a sleepy branchline to a regular commuter line.

Proper land use rules are one of the ways we can maintain a civil society without violence.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Yes. If there are real losses to anyone, those should be "socialized". Governments have a bad habit of allowing costs of their policies to be privatized.

A. If the "free-er market" (allowing 4-plexes within building envelopes) is the better, more natural market state- that means the market under exclusionary zoning featured prices artificially inflated by government intervention. Should those gains have been "socialized"?
B. What's a real loss? A paper equity drop of a few % points on the unrealized gain of an asset that's been held for decades and 10x'd surely is not.
C. Why are you so convinced that there will be losses? Either you're right and the real market shortfall is for big homes and big lots and the zoning discussion is much ado about nothing (as the buyers for those homes/lots will be willing to outbid those that want to develop) and the neighbourhoods will remain the same, or the developers profit motive will see them outbid the motivated buyers and the value will actually go up.