Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[dat_steve]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

^^ Sure do that and the landlord will just never do any reno to the buildings till everyone move out and then sell it or developers will simply develop area where there are no older apartments nearby.

except no developer will want to supply units that are essentially rent controlled, given that they have to also make their buildings x% rental now

Once a displaced tenant’s apartment is either renovated or replaced with a new development, they would have the opportunity to move back in at the same rent – subject only to regular annual increases for incumbent tenants.

maintenance costs will probably continue inflate at a higher rate than rents increase.

i'd guess the recent changes in burnaby council's bias towards tenants is going to cause a hard pause on new developments for a while.

[JDMDreams]

Right like doing something like this will promote landlords to provide more lower rent units

[yoursyumiko]

For assignment of contract, is the lift amount subject to GST?

[josayeee]

Originally Posted by yoursyumiko

For assignment of contract, is the lift amount subject to GST?

I believe it's a question of fact. If you sell assignments quite often or even a few times, CRA could argue that you are a builder doing business and the assignment fee will likely be subject to GST. There may be a small supplier exception to this if your assignment fee(s) in a year have never exceeded $30k.

If you bought a place intended to live in it but decided to sell it for a legit reason then the fee is likely not subject to GST.

Read the 4 examples here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...nium-unit.html

[yoursyumiko]

Originally Posted by josayeee

I believe it's a question of fact. If you sell assignments quite often or even a few times, CRA could argue that you are a builder doing business and the assignment fee will likely be subject to GST. There may be a small supplier exception to this if your assignment fee(s) in a year have never exceeded $30k.

If you bought a place intended to live in it but decided to sell it for a legit reason then the fee is likely not subject to GST.

Read the 4 examples here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...nium-unit.html

Thank you. It was purchased with the intention to be my first and primary residence. Found a pre owned while waiting for it to complete.

[bobbinka]

In the case that the transaction is subject to GST, note that it may not be limited to the lift amount.

[GS8]

From someone who was demovicted, I will say it can be a complicated subject to discuss as there are lots of variables. The building I lived in was built in 1969 but overall you couldn't really tell as they did some reno work and overall the building was clean and quiet (can't speak for every single tenant though). It needed a lot more work though such as windows, cabinetry, fixtures etc. which would have cost a lot of money. They spent something like $50k on a new boiler system which caused some pipes to burst throughout the building. Everything worked out in the end though. Of course, 4 months later, they got notice of their new land assessment which caused them to sell asap.

That said, when the average resident is paying $700 a month, no way the management company would have been able to pay for complex renos in 2019 money. But most of these tenants have been living here since the 1980s. I ran into one woman who lived there since 1972. I would have loved to know what her rent was.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by GS8

From someone who was demovicted, I will say it can be a complicated subject to discuss as there are lots of variables. The building I lived in was built in 1969 but overall you couldn't really tell as they did some reno work and overall the building was clean and quiet (can't speak for every single tenant though). It needed a lot more work though such as windows, cabinetry, fixtures etc. which would have cost a lot of money. They spent something like $50k on a new boiler system which caused some pipes to burst throughout the building. Everything worked out in the end though. Of course, 4 months later, they got notice of their new land assessment which caused them to sell asap.

That said, when the average resident is paying $700 a month, no way the management company would have been able to pay for complex renos in 2019 money. But most of these tenants have been living here since the 1980s. I ran into one woman who lived there since 1972. I would have loved to know what her rent was.

That's one of the issue with rent control. A lot of these buildings needs major reno but management company barely makes any money coz the rent is so low, if they have to invest in major repairs they are paying out of their pockets. So is just better to let the place rot and everyone move out and then sell the place to be redevelope.

If the gov really wants to help the lower/middle class built gov owned rental apartments. It works in HK,singapore I am sure if manage property it might work here. The issue we have is that a lot of these low income citizen are drug addicts and basically will destroy the place in a few days. Not to mention a lot of these people are pretty bad with hygiene so there are rats, bed bugs, mole, shit stins etc etc in their units.

The company I work for is involve in some of these low income rental apartments and we have no refuse to install any of our equipment there since they get destroy, pee on, rip apart and most of these people don't even pay for their service and came screaming, yelling being violent to our staff when we told them they need to pay their bills. Simply is not worth it.

[twitchyzero]

i rememebr looking at old metrotown low-rises when i was first moving out

some of them were real roughh

[hud 91gt]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

That's one of the issue with rent control. A lot of these buildings needs major reno but management company barely makes any money coz the rent is so low, if they have to invest in major repairs they are paying out of their pockets. So is just better to let the place rot and everyone move out and then sell the place to be redevelope.

If the gov really wants to help the lower/middle class built gov owned rental apartments. It works in HK,singapore I am sure if manage property it might work here. The issue we have is that a lot of these low income citizen are drug addicts and basically will destroy the place in a few days. Not to mention a lot of these people are pretty bad with hygiene so there are rats, bed bugs, mole, shit stins etc etc in their units.

The company I work for is involve in some of these low income rental apartments and we have no refuse to install any of our equipment there since they get destroy, pee on, rip apart and most of these people don't even pay for their service and came screaming, yelling being violent to our staff when we told them they need to pay their bills. Simply is not worth it.

The management company barely makes any money? They’ve been renting it out for 40 years! Work is going to have to be done at some point. More like they don’t account for the work, and run it like a bad strata. No surplus fund for repairs and the building just gets run down until a tear down is the best option!

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

i rememebr looking at old metrotown low-rises when i was first moving out

some of them were real roughh

Most are probably in the same state.

[Digitalis]

Better kick out your bum tenants now. New rule in the RTO that u can't evict/bailiff people in the winter months, they might catch a cold or something.

[nah]

Originally Posted by Digitalis

Better kick out your bum tenants now. New rule in the RTO that u can't evict/bailiff people in the winter months, they might catch a cold or something.

Being a landlord for residential sucks. I hear commercial is the way to go. Miss rent by 1 day and you're allowed to lock them out.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by hud 91gt

The management company barely makes any money? They’ve been renting it out for 40 years! Work is going to have to be done at some point. More like they don’t account for the work, and run it like a bad strata. No surplus fund for repairs and the building just gets run down until a tear down is the best option!

Is really hard to raise rent when someone have live there for 20+ years.

Let's just say 20 years ago rent is 700 and every year you raise the rent by 4% by the end of 20 years rent is only at $1,533.79 (roughly) I am sure if a new person move in their rent would be at least 1800 to 1900. And sometimes you can't even increase the rent by 4% more likely 3% or less. I know a friend who is been renting her place for at least 10 years. Her rent is around $1400 per month near DT. and that's with max rent increase every month. If someone were to rent her unit now their would be over 2000. Is the owners who needs to pay for the strata fees. if they don't feel they are getting their money worth they might vote down a lot of repairs till something actually breaks.

[hud 91gt]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

Is really hard to raise rent when someone have live there for 20+ years.

Let's just say 20 years ago rent is 700 and every year you raise the rent by 4% by the end of 20 years rent is only at $1,533.79 (roughly) I am sure if a new person move in their rent would be at least 1800 to 1900. And sometimes you can't even increase the rent by 4% more likely 3% or less. I know a friend who is been renting her place for at least 10 years. Her rent is around $1400 per month near DT. and that's with max rent increase every month. If someone were to rent her unit now their would be over 2000. Is the owners who needs to pay for the strata fees. if they don't feel they are getting their money worth they might vote down a lot of repairs till something actually breaks.

I don’t think your getting it. If a building owner has tenants who all have “cheap” rent, that means the building has been consistently occupied for the last 20-40 years. The building is paid off and the entire “cheap” rent goes to taxes and maintenance. Yes it’s possible the owner could bring in more money right now, but Jesus Christ.... the poor management company can’t fix a building because they don’t make enough money? Give me a break. I’ll take good long term tenants for less money any day of the week. They have been able to increase their rent ~2% a year. Their initial investment was super low (as per the rent) and now they are living large with a chunk of property that has exponentially increased in value.


If your friend is losing money, she probably should have thought a little harder about her initial investment. If she’s jealous because others are making more rent each month? It’s all part of the game. Boohoo.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Oh no no she is is the one renting so for her is a deal since her rent is so cheap compare to others.

Everything goes up in pricing IE bought a fire alarm last year for the 69 and this year got the same one for 79.

The strata can only do so much if the owners voted down to extra maintenance fees added to their monthly strata fee.

[6793026]

Originally Posted by hud 91gt

They have been able to increase their rent ~2% a year. Their initial investment was super low (as per the rent) and now they are living large with a chunk of property that has exponentially increased in value.

If your friend is losing money, she probably should have thought a little harder about her initial investment. If she’s jealous because others are making more rent each month? It’s all part of the game. Boohoo.

Good point. From the owner perspective, property / stocks / funds etc going up in value means NOTHING unless it's sold. Similar to saying... "Yyes your property tax is 20k per year but you're sitting on a 3 million dollar house, what's wrong...". Well, these seniors with no kids, lives by themselves are having a tough time with their fixed income.

Renters are also taking things for granted (my X gf was in that situation for 15 yrs); rent was $970 and even with 4% increases, it was not close to market value. Reality at same area in DT is now $2000+.

Just cause you've had it easy living at the same place for 15 years, you can't blame the world rent is so expensive in downtown now. F U for telling people all these years you're only paying way below market value all these years... Now you have to reallocate... glad a lot of your friends are now rubbing it in your face about your commute time.

[underscore]

I sympathize with any senior being forced to move but not so much for anyone still employed. They know full well they're paying less than market value for rent, so they should've been banking that difference and be ahead right now. A place doesn't turn into a tear down overnight so if they were expecting to live there cheap forever that's their own fault.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by 6793026

Good point. From the owner perspective, property / stocks / funds etc going up in value means NOTHING unless it's sold. Similar to saying... "Yyes your property tax is 20k per year but you're sitting on a 3 million dollar house, what's wrong...". Well, these seniors with no kids, lives by themselves are having a tough time with their fixed income.

Renters are also taking things for granted (my X gf was in that situation for 15 yrs); rent was $970 and even with 4% increases, it was not close to market value. Reality at same area in DT is now $2000+.

Just cause you've had it easy living at the same place for 15 years, you can't blame the world rent is so expensive in downtown now. F U for telling people all these years you're only paying way below market value all these years... Now you have to reallocate... glad a lot of your friends are now rubbing it in your face about your commute time.

The property taxes shouldn't be an issue for any senior who owns their home. They can defer their property taxes interest free until they die, it will get paid by their estate once liquidated.

[westopher]

People always mention that but these people just want to be victims more often than not. The same people that are “forced out of their homes by taxes” are the same people telling the younger generation “just work harder.”

[320icar]

I never understood how the whole “purchase/sale with clauses” works so smoothly. Maybe it doesn’t I’m not sure.

Say when my parents eventually sell their apartment. The purchase of a new home will have probably 250-300k down, but that’s coming from the sale of their apartment. So even if they find a perfect home and want to buy, they can’t without the whole subject to sale thing. That’s the kind of shit that would keep me up at night.

So is the market still sketchy as hell, or not so bad? I see detached homes in Ladner starting to dip under $1mil. If they ever replace the tunnel I assume the value would rocket up

[quasi]

Originally Posted by 320icar

I never understood how the whole “purchase/sale with clauses” works so smoothly. Maybe it doesn’t I’m not sure.

Say when my parents eventually sell their apartment. The purchase of a new home will have probably 250-300k down, but that’s coming from the sale of their apartment. So even if they find a perfect home and want to buy, they can’t without the whole subject to sale thing. That’s the kind of shit that would keep me up at night.

So is the market still sketchy as hell, or not so bad? I see detached homes in Ladner starting to dip under $1mil. If they ever replace the tunnel I assume the value would rocket up

In this market you're much better off to sell first and then buy. Homes aren't getting snapped up, if you sell your place you'll have a lot of negotiating power if you have cash and are ready to buy. For example with my house I was much likely to take a lower offer from someone who doesn't have a subject to sale. If your making a subject to sale offer expect to pay closer to ask.

When the market was crazy it was the other way around, buy first and then sell.

[Badhobz]

We are buying first and then selling afterwards. Primarily because we refuse to be subjected to these endless last minute viewings. Once we are in the new house, I won't give a fuck if they wanna go see that house as it'll be staged and ready to go at anytime.

[underscore]

^ I'd do the same, my family has dealt with enough dumbfuck realtors causing us problems to want to let people into my house that I'm actively living in.

[320icar]

Originally Posted by Badhobz

We are buying first and then selling afterwards. Primarily because we refuse to be subjected to these endless last minute viewings. Once we are in the new house, I won't give a fuck if they wanna go see that house as it'll be staged and ready to go at anytime.

Good idea but unfortunate I don’t think most of us can afford to float multiple 3mil homes