10 Comments
User's avatar
Allan Pippin's avatar

Immigration levels as we are seeing will not only be an issue for real estate and housing. Health care is in poor shape with millions waiting on surgeries and/or specialist appointments. Other social services are over their limits. The bag is going to burst.

Expand full comment
Naheed's avatar

millions are waiting on surgeries or specialist appointments?? I am immigration agnostic, but I believe a primary purpose of immigration is to ensure we can sustain our population and promote economic growth. But yes, we do have serious problems with regard to housing and health care.

Expand full comment
Mountain Mom's avatar

It’s insanity what our “elected” officials have done.

Expand full comment
Fuzzyteq's avatar

I disagree with, “ Ease zoning, reduce permit times”, unless it’s done properly. From what I’ve seen over the years the bottleneck is the limited construction industry and developers themselves. Depending on the municipality there may be the potential to update zoning to limit common variances if such revisions are deemed necessary through proper public consultation. Reducing permit times is possible through additional resources to improve processes, increase/train staffing and having standard plans that can be fast tracked. Reducing the quality of development will have cumulative long term impacts that will negatively impact the neighborhood/community/municipal tax payer. Unfortunately municipal governments are often under pressure to limit spending so much that they don’t invest enough to become more efficient/affective.

Expand full comment
SnarkyTrader's avatar

Federal Election coming up (2025 with possibility of being earlier), vote someone else in. I don't see how anyone else could be worse than the current administration.

Expand full comment
Jimn's avatar

Here's another factor: rent control. Seem counter-intuitive? How about this: It's ok for the Government of BC to award its employees 5+ % wage increases... but landlords? Nah, they're just greedy capitalists so let's limit them to 2%.

Doesn't work, does it.

Expand full comment
Sean Kollee's avatar

Each new unit can come with a removal of an old unit. Like any new fourplex you’ve got to tear down the old house and maybe it had a gross suite in the basement. So what is the actual net increase of any infill activity ?

Expand full comment
David Gillard's avatar

Good summary Steve. Your second-last sentence was on point. Let the free market figure this out.

Expand full comment
Elaine Calder's avatar

From the Victoria Times Colonist about the housing shortfall in Saanich:

Coun. Teale Phelps Bondaroff said "...if you look at this report, single-family home ownership is unattainable for anyone making other than an astronomical amount of money."

So, if SFH ownership is unattainable for almost everyone, what happens when someone needs to sell their SFH and expects to get at least the $1M their neighbours were getting (for old, poorly maintained houses) until recently?

I see three possibilities:

1. They manage to get $1M or close to it, and sell to a wealthy buyer as tear-down - but how many wealthy buyers are there in the CRD, with a population of 415,000? And do they want to live in a neighbourhood of old, poorly maintained houses?

2. They're forced to sell for a more reasonable/attainable $600k and still make a profit on the $100k they paid thirty years ago; or

3. A developer drives a hard bargain, parcels together their home and one or two adjacent properties, and applies to build multi-family housing on the lot.

Have I missed any other outcomes?

My question is, if buying a SFH is now unattainable for all but the wealthy and yet for various reasons people still have to sell, won't prices come down over time?

Expand full comment
Curtis's avatar

Nice little summary of your Loonie Hour episode 👌🏻

Expand full comment