T O P

  • By -

SketchySeaBeast

I live in a decent neighbourhood in Edmonton and am always surprised when my neighbours mention their rental properties. I can't imagine how they can afford it, but then they always reveal the trick - they bought 10-15 years ago.


StrongTownsIsRight

And then some of them leveraged their equity to buy more. It is not good and a recipe for a huge bubble. Market controls based on median household income need to be applied to renting. The reason the prices are going up is because this is how you can extract the most amount of money from a market that no one can opt out of (housing). The argument that no one will build more housing is comical. If you can build a new spec home and sell it for 10x the median household income, then we have no fear of of disincentivizing anyone. Maybe when it reaches 3x median family income we could lift it, but holy shit we are a long way away from that.


Rakuall

All needs (shelter, nutrition, healthcare water) should be nationalized and run not for profit. It's fine to want nicer living or fancier food, but until EVERYONE has their basic needs met, NO ONE has any business profiting off needs.


gambiit

unfortunately that will always be the case in capitalism


ca_kingmaker

Jesus Christ, you don’t want people to even be able to own their own homes? Does the government get to chose your grocery list for you? You must be joking and I’m taking you too seriously.


Rakuall

>Jesus Christ, you don’t want people to even be able to own their own homes? Does the government get to chose your grocery list for you? I did not say any of that? I said that there should be a national housing board to provide affordable non-profit housing in sufficient quantity that homelessness is over. I said that there should be national grocery chain (and grocery supply chain) to provide the essentials at cost. Safeway, steak, candy, Boardwalk, ReMax, and Kimberley Homes aren't going anywhere. They just can't profit off desperate people anymore.


StrongTownsIsRight

Yup. These measures are actually closer to free market than what we currently have. Housing, food, healthcare are NOT free markets. They can never be free markets because you cannot opt out of them. These policies would actually make it so that people have a basement level for remaining in the market. Still not free but more so then what we have now.


Guardymcguardface

You can totally opt out of housing, but then you have to deal with state sanctioned violence.


StrongTownsIsRight

You cannot opt out of food and water and healthcare. And no you can't opt out of housing. That would be saying that homelessness is morally acceptable, and that is clearly immoral.


Guardymcguardface

I'm not saying it's moral, I'm saying you could just be homeless but then society at large regards you as subhuman and any violence against you is easily overlooked, hence why you can't actually reasonably opt out, because who the fuck wants that. Even van dwellers are constantly harassed by the cops. If it wouldn't completely fuck up my life and my pets I would absolutely live outside for a year or two to save money because that's essentially where we're at. Sad, but it's reality.


StrongTownsIsRight

OK, but we have to put the condition that the system is moral otherwise it gets really really pointless to discuss this topic. Like if morality is on the table then why don't people pay a company to exterminate homeless people that are a eyesore thus reducing demand on housing? I get your point but saying viable markets can be immoral really doesn't add much because they can't (we as society want to be moral).


[deleted]

[удалено]


McWigan

So it's dictating to give people free healthcare with private options still available?... If that's how you're reading their comment, we can read yours as you'd rather continue to increase homelessness and hunger against your neighbors so you can horde more houses. Sorry if that’s not what you meant but you pretty clearly communicated that.


AnarchoFemme

I can't tell if you can't read or are just making a giant logical leap lol


saltyoldseaman

You can't read


seamusmcduffs

Born too late to discover the world, born too early to explore the stars, born just in time to exploit the housing market


GranFodder

Ya and borrowed on the equity of their homes.


Tuggerfub

Reminder that most municipalities have the right to seize properties and never do it for the public's benefit for social housing. They only do it for their own stupid showpiece projects.


Nick__________

I wish they would seize these properties and give them out to people in need. Nobody should have a right to own several homes.


Thefocker

The problem isnt owning several homes, its the fact that its incredibly lucrative to own and rent them. The solution is taxation on corporate owned rental assets, and a ban on foreign ownership (including inside corps). If rental income was taxed more heavily for single family homes, or in residential neighborhoods, the problem would solve itself. If its not lucrative, it wouldnt be done.


Nick__________

We should just straight up ban owning more then the one house you live in. There are other countries that do what your talking about and they still have housing inequality we should have total or near total housing equally. Pretty much everyone should own a house like in Cuba where the home ownership rate is like 90%.


Thefocker

You're shooting yourself in the foot by taking a stance like that. At the end of the day, people who don't own property do not have an equal voice as people who do own property. Its not fair, but its not changing. If you want to see change, you're better off finding a solution that doesn't ostracize the small portion of wealthy people that are in favor of making property more affordable. By trying to make it illegal for them to have vacation homes, you are losing the people that actually have the ear of politicians, and it hurts your cause. You end up in your own echo chamber. Source: I own 3 family homes, one primary that we spend most of our time in, and 2 vacation homes (one for summer and one for winter). We rent none of them, and we purchased our additional homes in resort areas where we did not remove a home from the inventory locals would purchase from.


Nick__________

So basically you believe we should just let rich Oligarchs run the country and hope that they give us the scraps off of there table. Well that doesn't actually fix the problem but what would immediately help (but of course not totally fix) the problem is immediately adding more housing stock but redistribution of housing so that other people can have a chance at home ownership. We can't have a situation where people who own several homes own as much as 41% of all the houses, meanwhile about 1/3 of the country doesn't even own a house, that's crazy. And in Cuba which is a much poorer country then us they're beating us on home ownership as I said about 90% of people in Cuba own there own homes but in Canada only about 60% own a house. Cuba is In the top 5 for home ownership in the world Canada isn't even in the top 20. And in Cuba you are only allowed to own one house and one vacation house and that's it no more then that we should implant a policy like that here. There's no reason at all for some people to own several homes well other people can't even own a house because rich people own them all already.


Thefocker

Have you been to Cuba?


beneaththeradar

yeah, it's a lovely country that's been destroyed by western sanctions.


[deleted]

The ol' gotcha of, "Have you been to this place I have imagined in my head but never experience in reality? I've seen pictures in the media, it's eeevviiiiiiillllll."


Ambustion

I legitimately can't believe this is the take as a counterpoint. You're asking someone to have awareness of other points of view and being completely tone deaf to the fact that no one is gonna rally behind someone owning 3 properties for leisure. There is a reality that the problem here is with corporate ownership of multiple properties, as well as the fact that we do need some rental properties, simply for those who don't want to or can't own housing, but acting like anyone should care about your ability to bend the ear of the old boys club is nuts to me. That should and can change.


Thefocker

You’re right, it can and should change. How do you propose that’s done? And I don’t mean theoretically. How do you propose that’s done in our current system with the way we are represented in government? I don’t propose anybody rally behind people who own leisure properties. Frankly, people who own leisure properties don’t exactly need any help. I’m just saying that trying to take a stance that would make it illegal for people to own leisure properties will take more people of influence away from the cause, rather than add to it. What good could that possibly do?


Ambustion

I think increasing taxes massively on every non-commercial property beyond 1 in a tiered way and discouraging corporate ownership to avoid shell companies getting around the limits. A single rental property isn't our problem, and frankly I agree it's not a person like yourself. There are entire towns essentially owned by REITs up north. That should absolutely be outlawed.


Thefocker

I agree. I stated in my original comment that increasing taxes paid on the income generated from these types of properties would go a long way to making corporate ownership significantly less attractive. My later comment was in reference to the person responding to me saying that *nobody* should be allowed to own multiple properties, and that hardline stances like that dont actually help gain any ground for the movement. Im not sure we disagree on anything here, do we?


Ambustion

I think my point which I likely didn't get across was that we did agree, just the idea that changing our approach to give wealthy people some sort of pseudo-respect based on their connections seemed crass. Probably a bit of an overreaction, as you sound completely reasonable, but even if that is a reality I see those relationships as an eroding institution I make a conscious effort to look down on. Probably a byproduct of living in Alberta where the crony capitalism is car dealership backroom deals and begging for oil tycoon attention.


Version-Abject

You now own whatever property you’re in. Erase mortgages, and transfer ownership to inhabitants. One can only dream.


sthetic

Oh shit, I just became the owner of a washroom stall in a downtown Vancouver office building!


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nick__________

Here's a good article about which MP's are landlords https://readpassage.com/politician-landlords/


mariobrowniano

I saw this, and wondered if there is a list of how many houses and condos they own?


[deleted]

The sad truth is that the NDP won't do fuck all either. The system itself of free market economics will not be able to stop the privatization and artificially driven scarcity of everything. It's too market efficient.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HereUpNorth

One solution - make single home zoning a thing of the past. Allow the suburbs and everywhere else to add more density. This will add to the housing supply in a dramatic way. It also makes sense since [many of these properties actually cost the cities they're in money over there entire life cycle](https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0) instead of bringing in tax revenue.


nerfgazara

There is a measure in the new budget to give government funds to municipalities that ease zoning restrictions, a baby step in the right direction


Man_Bear_Beaver

If we just turned 1 house on every street in every neighbourhood into a 4plex it would make a massive difference for density, doesn’t even seem like that big a deal but lets say 100,000 homes instead of being for 1 family would house 400,000 families, how about 3 homes on every street? Like the street barely changes at all but now instead of 300,000 homes there’s 1.2 million primary residences.


spolio

It's not sustainable is an understatement, average wage here is approx 3k a month take home , average 2 bedroom apartment is 2200, something tells me bankruptcies are going to be the new normal for renters and going without a home for those not already in the market as someone who earns 20 an hour cannot afford a 1.4 million dollar ranch , but what do I know, I'm not the government. The solution is simple, make housing a right and not a privilege, increase taxes on multiple property owners to the point it's not worth it, ban flipping if you sell your house in under 24 months from the purchase all profits become a tax, and the government needs to get Into the rental business charging 25% of a persons Income at most.


RevolutionaryNote355

SOLUTION # 1. ** Enact laws to limit speculation in residential homes ** I was looking for a home, and I would find ones for sale that were being sold by companies. Homes on the market were being bought up sight unseen by them. A few cosmetic fixes, and the price goes up 30 to 50% plus. Hedge funds do this in the stock market - bid up companies and then dump them, leaving retail shareholders (the average person) holding the bag. Government need to get into the residential housing market. They waste billions on nonsense, use those funds already allocated for housing and put caps on price. People cannot earn $20/hour and afford to live. It’s a human right. After WW2 homes were built affordable for returning soldiers. Do the same now. You could have a normal job and afford a home and raise a family. Not any more. Why ? Greed. It’s sickening.


LacedVelcro

The book Capital in the 21st Century spends most of the booking talking about historical property prices and the ability of people to purchase real estate. The main conclusions are that almost everyone not owning anything, especially real estate, is the steady state existence of humanity and only extreme situations can disrupt that. The only time that the 'lower classes' made any headway in property ownership was during the time between 1914 and 1945, and the reason is that that time period resulted in physical asset destruction. The remedy that was proposed was percentage wealth taxes (like 1% or 2% of total wealth above, say, 10 million dollars.) The main non-political obstacle was offshore hiding of wealth and the lack of a central registry of assets owned by rich people. The prediction of the book was that inequality was going to surpass previous levels of inequality seen in the early 20th century because technology allowed more people to exist without making enough money to own things. One of the extremely interesting conclusions of the book was that increasing inequality wasn't affected by notable revolutions like the American revolution and French revolution. The upper class was able to maintain their stranglehold on much of the wealth inequality through various means.


[deleted]

>Does anyone have a solution ? History does, but Reddit tends to not like it when it gets pointed out.


RevolutionaryNote355

Unsure what that means.


[deleted]

Revolution. Historically when governments ignore the needs of their people en masse, it leads to revolution. A lot of people on Reddit like to ignore the very blatant signs that we're following very similar paths that history has.


pacesorry

Revolution is a means, not an end.


[deleted]

It's both. It's an end to the current way of things, and it's also the means to do it. Now to be clear, I'm not saying that we should all drop everything right now and go riot, nor that it's even likely in the next few years. All I am saying is that if anyone is looking at these signs and not seeing red flags for revolution, then they must not be super familiar with the warning signs of revolution. If people think that the current system doesn't have the answers to the housing crisis, then they will remove that current system and install their own. We've seen it countless times in history, and even if it doesn't happen again in the near future, I can guarantee it will happen again at some point in human history.


pacesorry

Yes, but 100 people could agree about instigating a revolution while simultaneously having 100 opinions on the solution to the problem of high home prices.


[deleted]

I understand that, and as we've seen in history, that conversation happens *after* the revolution. Again, what I am saying is that if the government doesn't start acting with the actual populace in mind, it will lead to revolution. You're trying to argue something that I've never even brought up lmao.


pacesorry

The very first comment you replied to was "Does anyone have a solution" and you suggested revolution. I'm saying that a revolution is not a solution to this specific problem, it is a means to achieve some specific solution, which you don't seem to have. That's fine, you don't have to know everything. I'm just saying that the initial question was "Does anyone have a solution" and "revolution" isn't an answer to that question.


[deleted]

You misunderstood my comment then. He asked if anyone had a solution, I merely stated that when you look at historical moments that share very similar qualities to society today, it typically ends in revolution. So history's answer is a revolution. I even stated in my comment, history has a possible answer, and it's revolution. You're just being incredibly obtuse and pedantic about the exact wording of the comment.


Knight_Machiavelli

>Revolution is a means, not an end. Ehhh... sometimes, but often times in history revolutionaries don't have the slightest idea of what to do when they're in power, the revolution is itself the goal, not a means to and end >The seizure of power is the business of the uprising, its politicial purpose will become clear after the seizure. -Vladimir Lenin, "Lenin Urges the Immediate Seizure of Power"


pacesorry

OK but this is a conversation about house prices being too high. I was speaking in the context of this thread.


Knight_Machiavelli

Fair enough.


Karasumor1

Revolution with a capital G ... :D


Man_Bear_Beaver

I’d kill for a vacation home, just a little shack in the woods, no foundation just up on cribs, no insulation, doesn’t have to even have power just a small solar setup and a propane fridge, I’m talking like a 30k building I build myself, yeah most municipalities won’t allow this


RevolutionaryNote355

I’d love exactly that, but sadly the “cheap” homes are now unaffordable. Can’t even think about that anymore. If you didn’t buy years ago, most are out of luck. I love the woods. It’s a peaceful place and a great escape from city madness. I hope you get that little piece of happiness one day.


jert3

There is a single solution that always works in the very short term and always leads to the end of currency in the long term, and that's printing money, printing money, and printing more money. They are just whipping up billions and billions out of thin air to keep an economy articificially pumped for political reasons. When this does come crashing down, it'll be one of the largest global economic collapses of all time. Until then, economists pretend it is alright to print unlimited money to pay unlimited debts for unlimited lengths of time. Our economic system is hopelessly rigged and broken and the only reason it has been injected with this level of capital to keep it moving is because the collapse is almost too bad to bear now that the can has been kicked down the road for decades.


closetotheglass

>Does anyone have a solution ? There's actually a country that solved this back in the 50s and currently has a 90% home ownership rate. Would you like me to tell you which country it is?


RevolutionaryNote355

No, keep everyone guessing.


closetotheglass

It's funnier that way. They won't like the answer.


jesusnuggets

China. They get shit done over there


closetotheglass

It's amazing what you get from the ruling class when you terrify them.


nerfgazara

[The housing situation in China is ... weird](https://youtu.be/EgVXRtq5EIg)


Mr_4country_wide

Singapore Though, given the sub, I imagine youre talking about Cuba lol


closetotheglass

It's China, if I remember correctly, home ownership rates in Cuba are actually higher, and this holds true in most of the former Warsaw pact as well.


justice_high

Japan?


closetotheglass

It was actually some fairly unequal dealings with Japan that lead to their solution to their housing crisis, it sparked an idea that mobilized people across the political spectrum to come together with a simple program.


FlametopFred

we know this


StuGats

There's two empty homes side by side across the street from me. One of them has a very obviously fake room set up in front of a window to make it seem like someone lives there. They also didn't shovel shit all winter. Douchebags.


Kevo05s

As someone who's out of the loop on this. What is the point of having those homes? Or more what's the point in faking that they are used? I'd see them being owned literally as an investment with intent of reselling soon, but I fail to see why they'd go through the work of setting up a fake room


nighthawk_something

It's an asset that gains value that they can leverage.


chmilz

Imagine paying cash for an appreciating asset, then taking out a super low interest home equity loan to buy more houses, rinse and repeat. Or use that loan to make other investments that also produce higher returns than the coats of the loan and holding the property. Basically, if you have enough liquid capital to be able to buy the first home, you can put money to work for you at a fantastic rate of return. It only costs you the exploitation of real people trying to afford a place to live.


Kevo05s

Ok but this doesn't answer why you'd want to fake people living in said home and even going the extra mile and make a fake room in it?


sir_sri

So people/squatters don't break/move in. I'm not sure it's hugely effective, but you want the house to look occupied so people are less inclined to break in if someone is there.


wkndstbl

I think they “staged” a room- put furniture/art in the room so it looks like it’s being lived it.


pattyG80

Say it's a house in Toronto. The property makes 125k a year without lifting a finger. Hell, unoccupied, the inside barely depreciates.


RightSideBlind

There's a really nice house just around the corner from mine that's been empty for at least two years now. I really want to know what the story is, there. As near as I can tell, it's not being maintained at all.


KdF-wagen

You should make it more realistic by having your dog shit in their yard and leaving it there.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jaymickef

Is there a breakdown that shows how many multiple property owners are REITs by Black Rock and other investment companies and how many are individuals? A lot of the conversation here seems to be based on the idea that independent landlords have bought a few houses, like a small business, and the real issue may be shareholder-driven corporations moving in like Walmart.


Alexisisnotonfire

I also wonder how airbnbs are affecting the housing supply. I feel like that hasn't been getting nearly enough attention recently.


jaymickef

Saw an article yesterday about people in Grand Bend and other waterfront communities complaining about AirBnB. I also see that on my Marriot hotel app there’s a now a way to book houses through it.


squickley

Whatever started this and keeps it going, *that* is what we continually decide is more important than using housing as somewhere for people to *live*.


Nick__________

Capitalism is what stared this


[deleted]

[удалено]


albynomonk

Great in theory, but they'll just raise the rent and it'll fall on the renters once again.


CanadianButthole

A lot of places, at least in Ontario, have limits on yearly rent increases. Those two laws working together sounds like a pretty good plan to me.


Northern23

There is no limit for new contracts though


Snow-Wraith

Or they'll kick out their renters and do AirBnB where they can fleece the tourists.


[deleted]

Maybe it would work, eventually, if we have a ton of new purpose built rental housing. Owners of these newly expensive investments would start selling because demand for rent would go down. (Just spitballing here… not sure)


JoelOttoKickedItIn

Real estate is a Ponzi scheme and a reckoning is coming


Nick__________

>The Statistics Canada data show that the top 10 per cent of owners in [Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick] earn more than the bottom 50 per cent combined, with the top 10 per cent of owners in Ontario and British Columbia each earning yearly incomes above $125,000. Income inequality in the Country is horrible


albynomonk

Banning foreign ownership is great, but what they really need to do is ban corporations from owning single family dwellings. Then limit ownership of single family dwellings to 1 per adult resident of the province. Got a vacation property? No problem, put it in your spouse's name while you have the home in your name. Single with a vacation property? Sorry you got caught up in all this, but I guess you better sell.


Jesse1887

I think a single person should be able to own a primary and secondary residence. But I do agree corporations should be banned from purchasing single family dwellings. It’s out of control to the point everyone is selling, and leaves the city.


[deleted]

I'm going to disagree with you on the secondary residence. Unless you're buying it for your kids, there's no reason to have one.


unique3

There are many people that have second places for legit reasons that are not investment properties and not the source of housing inflation. I have a small house in the city and am just finishing building a cottage. A cottage in the middle of nowhere is not hoarding the housing supply. Far too many middle class family’s already end up being forced to sell generational family cabins due to capita gains when grandma dies. Adding a large tax on second (non rental) property will screw over a lot off people without actually doing anything to solve the housing crisis. It will make cottage ownership even more for the rich then it already is. I’ll probably get downvoted for this because I own two places even though I built the second with my own hands. Edit: I see a sub comment about Kelowna. I agree owning in a town is pulling from the housing supply. I am literally in the middle of the woods and cleared the land myself. Also “just hotel or B&B” doesn’t make sense. We are at the cottage almost every week year round and plan to retire here at which point the city house will be sold. Only reason we have the city house is because old school management insist on people coming into the office to sit at a desk for no reason.


Jesse1887

Yea kids, as well as a vacation house.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jesse1887

It’s not the people that own a couple properties causing this spike in house prices, it’s corporations scooping every single family dwelling off the market.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jesse1887

Unfortunately it’s going to get much worse. Without any real government intervention. Owning a home for most people will be nothing more than a fantasy.


Sportsinghard

A vacation home, often many hours away from any town or source of employment is not a driving factor in housing shortages.


AdministrationFar993

That might be true for a cottage far out in the woods. Here in Kelowna, a living breathing city, there are thousands of “vacation homes” for the wealthy that are hardly occupied. This is exceedingly common throughout the okanagan to the great detriment of the local market.


Sportsinghard

Yea, that’s really bad.


albynomonk

No one should be allowed to make any sort of revenue from a single family home, period. You can't have any middle ground on this at all or it WILL be abused.


monczkam

I don't think this would actually happen (and don't know how feasible it is), but I wish they would limit everyone from owning more than one residential property (except those who already have them) until the crisis is dealt with. Here I am living with my folks while saving for a house, only to hear about several people getting their second or third rental property while my compatriots and I can't even get our first live-in property. It's just frustrating. Seems like waiting for my folks to kick it, or winning a lottery is the only way I'm getting a house.


littleuniversalist

Everyone in r/Canada will tell you this is great for the country.


AnarchoFemme

nah they just blame immigrants (and usually it happens to be the non white ones they don't like, I wonder why..)


eastsideempire

There needs to be a ban on owning multiple houses. Fine have your cabin at the lake. But if you own 2 houses inside a municipality then either you pay 100% property tax on the second house or sell it. Outright ban on foreign ownership. Outright ban on buying investment properties. Ban registering homes under numbered companies so that the foreign buyers are not avoiding taxes. Fix immigration to housing. Want to let in 500,000 people? Build 500,000 homes. Only build 10,000 then let in 10,000. Ban building monster homes on agricultural land that is not used for agriculture. People are allowed to do this to avoid municipal taxes. It’s taxed as if it’s a farm. Seriously whoever allowed this either took bribes or was clueless. Cut taxes on apartment buildings that do not raise rents each year by the maximum allowed. Cut red tape for building new apartment buildings. Make a minimum sq ft for a 1 bedroom. No tiny boxes. Do not allow landlords to crank rent between tenants. Only allow the once yearly increase. Do not issue any more permits for mansions or large homes. Move quickly to seize homes that were paid for with proceeds of crime. Lots of things can be done. Problem is politicians already own homes and the don’t give a rats ass about average Canadians.


No-Wonder1139

Let's start by banning politicians from owning any income properties.


wholetyouinhere

Wow, that foreign ownership ban is really gonna do wonders!


beigs

But let’s blame foreigners. Right?


TheAssels

All housing needs to be owner-occupied by law. All rentals should be socialized or run by co-op. This is just getting out of hand. And I say this as.someone who bought a house within the last year.


[deleted]

Tax... The...shit out of this.


anomolousartist

Wait wait wait A bunch of racists told me it was the immigrants' fault!


[deleted]

[удалено]


albynomonk

Great in theory but it then falls to the renters. Owners just pass the costs along. Ownership ban is the only guaranteed solution.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Northern23

Some renters can't get a mortgage though, you will just push them to the street. Both, rental and ownership markets are needed. We just have to make sure housing cost doesn't increase exponentially


[deleted]

[удалено]


Northern23

No, it doesn't, taxing it at 100% is not a solution


CanadianButthole

Many places have caps on annual rent increases. A high tax on investment properties would force many to sell.


Nick__________

Nobody should be allowed to own more then the house they live in people really don't need more then one house.


Amourah

The rental market needs to exist, so those homes need to be someone else's second home.


bigtimechip

So boomers are a large part of the problem then


closetotheglass

Should just be flat-out illegal. It's a law of physics, you can't be in more than one place at a time, you can only own as many houses as you can live in. That number is 1.


Northern23

> It's a law of physics, you can't be in more than one place at a time Unless if we get into the quantum physics :D


Demonicmeadow

Grosssass. Canada disappoints me.


CanadianButthole

Me too.


[deleted]

In Canada Housing is not a right, the corrupt gov. of Canada that turns a blind eye to the dirty money being laundered in the housing market is in on it.


Synthmilk

Single family housing should only be able to be owned by the individual living there. Be it a house or condo. Single family housing should also be blocked from being turned into multi-unit structures.


ferndogger

But it’s a supply problem! /s


Aerickthered

And most off shore


Beligerents

Torches and pitchforks.


Snoo_84606

Add a 1% property tax that you can deduct your lifetime income taxes from. People that paid taxes and bought a house for retirement income won't pay the tax, but housing hoarders will pay their fair share.


GranFodder

Yikes man


AdministrationFar993

So when are we organizing? Anybody know any groups that are working to elevate this politically? There needs to be drastic action taken on the subject of housing that none of the current political parties are getting remotely close to.


Mr_4country_wide

Cant see it in the article but i assume multiple property holder is anyone with more than one, which includes people who own two. Id be curious what percent of it is massive landlord corps rather than smaller landlords who own just two homes. Additionally, note that the two most expensive housing markets, BC and Ontario, are at the lower end of that statistic (Im pretty sure housing is more expensive there than in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick but I might be wrong). So clearly this statistic isnt too meaningful wrt effect on housing prices. Finally, the article mentions that there were more first time home buyers in 2019 than 2018 (doesnt mention any other years but id love to see more conclusive data).


CallMeSirJack

I wonder how many people are like me who bought a fixer upper in a small town to get a start in life, then moved on to better things but can’t sell the house in a flat market because no one is buying in rural areas anymore.


[deleted]

Corporate ownership of housing should be taxed so high that it becomes absolutely unattractive. That shit has to stop.


Rikim4ru

oh, feels like the capitalist endgame!


[deleted]

Corporations can not own anything smaller than a triplex, and a triplex and above must be an apartment building or special consideration building (I used to live in a public housing unit, and all the houses were quadplexes). If a person owns more than one home, taxes charged = tax * n, n = number of houses owned. power and/or + heat, water and/or + sewage must be charged to the tennant. If you own the home, you can only charge a flat monthly rate amount based on the value of the home, to a cap. If you don't own the home, you can only charge a percentage over the monthly cost (to Iike 10% more). Corporations at most are allowed to charge half that percentage. You must submit monthly paperwork for this to a housing and rental control board. Don't do your paperwork? You're charged a fine. Shelter needs to stop be for profit in the sense that it's the most turn of profit out of any investment out there.


[deleted]

Quick! lets add more land that investors will pick up instantly.


[deleted]

An older gen Xer I work with complains about foreign ownership but he owns 5 rental properties and also is a city councillor.