Good Article nut the last people we need to bail out with my money are developers and speculators.
We have flat population growth and likely to continue having either flat or declining growth for the foreseeable future. Dropping prices are a good thing considering how ridiculously high they have shot up over the last decade.
Cities like Vancouver and Toronto are both overbuilt and overpriced. The market sales are simply reverting to a normal stable basis instead of being fueled by massive over immigration.
We have an oversupply of units being finished off in BC for a declining population.
IF, and that is a very BIG if, we need to "grease" the industry - why do that by giving a straight out GIFT to developers? Why not decrease land transfer taxes (a very signifigant sum in toronto) which decreases costs to buyers - but maintains the market pressure on builders. Adding more fuel to a raging fire is EXACTLY what got us to where we are. Public policy would be FAR better advised to have learned from past errors. Let the market WORK!
Development cost charges are the only means a municipality can offset the additional costs associated with increased population and cost for upgrading infrastructure. They aren't meant to be a profit centre but a cost offset. No development, no cost and therefore the loss of DCC's shouldn't be a big deal for municipalities. Implying that it's a tax without offsetting costs is not my understanding of how this works. Reduction of DCC's means the existing residents of the municipality are going to pay for the costs incurred for a new development which is completely unfair. Asking municipalities to shoulder the burden along with all the other BC NDP Govt downloaded costs is making it harder for homeowners who bear increased property taxes to enable developers to densify towns and cities with no benefit to citizens who already live and work there. I'm not in favour of transferring the costs of development to existing property owners.
DCC and property taxes are two major sources of revenues for cities. Property owners vote vociferously and they really really really like low property taxes and don’t gaf about DCC and user fees and parking tickets much. New entrants on the property ladder have the weakest lobby so do not be surprised if DCCs are around for a while. I am guessing if you asked the typical new condo buyer how much of the purchase price was a DCC (a voluntary but hidden tax) most times you would get a blank stare and a shoulder shrug in response!
Good summary. There has to be a reset in the carrying cost of land as it was acquired by most developers at prices that are just uneconomical. This only happens by fire sales of undeveloped and partially developed properties, which hasn't even started yet. Banks and 3rd party lenders will also need to take some haircuts to share the load with developers.
Good Article nut the last people we need to bail out with my money are developers and speculators.
We have flat population growth and likely to continue having either flat or declining growth for the foreseeable future. Dropping prices are a good thing considering how ridiculously high they have shot up over the last decade.
Cities like Vancouver and Toronto are both overbuilt and overpriced. The market sales are simply reverting to a normal stable basis instead of being fueled by massive over immigration.
We have an oversupply of units being finished off in BC for a declining population.
Lets be clear tax reductions do NOT mean PRICE reductions. They do mean BIGGER margins. This is a straight out and out GIFT to developers.
IF, and that is a very BIG if, we need to "grease" the industry - why do that by giving a straight out GIFT to developers? Why not decrease land transfer taxes (a very signifigant sum in toronto) which decreases costs to buyers - but maintains the market pressure on builders. Adding more fuel to a raging fire is EXACTLY what got us to where we are. Public policy would be FAR better advised to have learned from past errors. Let the market WORK!
Development cost charges are the only means a municipality can offset the additional costs associated with increased population and cost for upgrading infrastructure. They aren't meant to be a profit centre but a cost offset. No development, no cost and therefore the loss of DCC's shouldn't be a big deal for municipalities. Implying that it's a tax without offsetting costs is not my understanding of how this works. Reduction of DCC's means the existing residents of the municipality are going to pay for the costs incurred for a new development which is completely unfair. Asking municipalities to shoulder the burden along with all the other BC NDP Govt downloaded costs is making it harder for homeowners who bear increased property taxes to enable developers to densify towns and cities with no benefit to citizens who already live and work there. I'm not in favour of transferring the costs of development to existing property owners.
DCC and property taxes are two major sources of revenues for cities. Property owners vote vociferously and they really really really like low property taxes and don’t gaf about DCC and user fees and parking tickets much. New entrants on the property ladder have the weakest lobby so do not be surprised if DCCs are around for a while. I am guessing if you asked the typical new condo buyer how much of the purchase price was a DCC (a voluntary but hidden tax) most times you would get a blank stare and a shoulder shrug in response!
Good summary. There has to be a reset in the carrying cost of land as it was acquired by most developers at prices that are just uneconomical. This only happens by fire sales of undeveloped and partially developed properties, which hasn't even started yet. Banks and 3rd party lenders will also need to take some haircuts to share the load with developers.