It would definitely be difficult to save it from zero while renting, but that's where the investment aspect of home ownership comes in.

We bought a low rise condo 6 years ago and sold later for 85% gain in value late last year. Increase in value plus equity accumulated easily got us 20% down for a detached house without dipping into savings.

Fortunately our household income increased during that time as well to support the increased mortgage payment.

New supply getting scooped up by "investors" is certainly a problem because it makes it really difficult for people to become homeowners. On the other hand, the article you quoted explicitly mentioned this as well:

The housing affordability problem we have here doesn't just pertain to unaffordable home ownership -- it also happens with unaffordable home rentals. So that makes me think -- at least here in BC where we have the provincial empty home tax (as well as the municipal CoV empty home tax), and that means these new supplies are unlikely to be left vacant. Some investor owners will invariably find loopholes to avoid the empty home tax. But esp for regular mom and pop type of investors, it seems extremely likely that they will rent the property out, thus increasing the rental supply. So that larger rental supply would be helpful to rental affordability -- or at least, it wouldn't make it worse.

So I'm thinking, new supply getting scooped up by investors isn't necessarily problematic -- as long as the units get put up in the rental market at a reasonable rate. For a government that wants to ensure (rental) affordability, they'd just have to make sure the investor-purchased units find its way into the rental market (at an affordable rate).

Thus my question becomes -- how do-able is it to enforce this? Is BC already doing it?

If I had a $1.5M house paid off, I would not want to buy a $2.5M house with tenants.

I can't wait until I don't need tenants anymore.

That's like saying rich people bought all the Lamborghini's and there's nothing left for the poor people. I don't think it's possible to actually have everyone in the world own a home. Wouldn't we run out of space? Or would we have to drop all the homeless off on a deserted island. :accepted:

Are you being obtuse?

Or are you saying home in the “detached house” sense of the word?

I don’t think I need tenants anymore, and I would love to reclaim that space, but it’s nice to have them make a substantial contribution to my toy/vacation fund…

Going to have to disagree with this outside of Vancouver at least. Population growth is exponential and housing starts have not even close to kept up. There is a significant shortage. Based on ratios of housing for sale vs population I compared tumbler ridge vs an okanagan city. Tumbler ridge is nearing 2% and okanagan city less than 0.5%. So you would essentially need 4 times the available supply to even start to catch up. You can buy some housing in tumbler ridge for less than a new car. There is an abundance of supply there and prices are affordable. I get 40-60 applicants whenever I have a place available for rent in the okanagan and the city is only issuing ~60 house permits per year. Based on the latest census numbers the population is increasing by 500 per year. So they would need to cram 8 people per house just to maintain which is not possible, so the supply problem just snowballs.

That's a misleading article at best and Traum's already pointed out the flaws in it.

A few weeks ago I shared a few points about the supply side and I'll restate a few of them:

- Canada has the lowest number of housing units per capita amongst the G7. Guess who has the worst housing problems?
- This is made worse b/c household sizes have been declining so per capita housing actually needs to increase (rather than stay stable).
- It's made worse b/c the housing is also in the wrong place, people keep moving to cities and in those cities, housing starts per capita is even worse than in rural areas.
- Housing starts per capita have declined every year since the 70's. We're building fewer homes than ever before and have been doing it for 40 plus years. This was going to eventually catch up to us.
- Estimates are that we're short as many as 1.8m housing units (the equivalent of 6 Vancouvers). We currently build about the equivalent of a Vancouver every year in Canada so catching up would require a doubling of new housing for the next 6-9 years (dependent on population growth)

Sure, investors are hurting things and they're running out of places to put their money but baseline metrics on housing all show a decline in available housing in REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD ways - there's not a single baseline metric (how many houses per citizen in particular) that has gotten better, they've all gotten way worse over the last 40 years.

We can ban investors all we want but it'll only slow down the increase and not stop it (or bring it down to inflation level).

https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog...in-housing-bs/

Data backed debunking of "It's not a supply issue" or "There's plenty of supply".

I never once said we shouldn't still work on supply, we most definitely should, that is certainly paramount. What we also require though is fiscal and government intervention on the speculation side of the equation.

When we have lobbying firms touting the idea of increasing supply by knocking down mid-tier rental and older properties offering accessible and affordable housing, only to replace it with a larger building with $2,500 rental units owned by numbered LLCs, that doesn't fix the problem.

That simply pushes those same people to the suburbs and smaller communities, increasing the issue you just mentioned -- the lack of rental properties in the boonies and interior. It's all interconnected.

The Fifth Estate did an excellent piece on this recently in fact:


Each city is quite different, the investment property firm scheme is even more prominent back East, but it is certainly contributing to the problem here as well.

But doesn't it go back to the point where we can't house everyone in this area. Rental companies, land lords aren't charity's, if the cost of ownership goes up you can't expect rental prices to be dirt cheap so everyone on minimum wage can afford a place. Look at how much property prices have gone up by in the last 2 years, 20-30%, property tax increases, I sure don't see rent going up by that much. If any at all in the last few years.

There has to be an incentive for the landlords to rent out, if it's too little money that it's not worth the trouble they won't do it. So you can't just expect they will keep rent down to be affordable considering how much inflation is and how cost of everything has skyrocketed recently.

People have to live within their means, if they want better living situation then make more money or move somewhere you can afford. It's a free market no one is forcing you to live in Vancouver one of the most expensive cities in the world.

Don’t worry, the welfare state hasn’t even begun.

Soon you’ll be forced to sell your home to house 10 other people then work harder than you are now for half the home you used to have SeemsGood

Cash flow is King, there's no doubt about that.

Do you have a family/kids? I only have one young boy right now, but once he gets older and we have another (hopefully), I don't think we'll have enough space and we'll probably have to take over the rental.

Would any of you pay this kind of money for a house like this in Burnaby?
One of my must-haves is a driveway of some sort now, whether it's in the back of the house or the front of the house like this.

https://www.redfin.ca/bc/burnaby/509...home/155995346

My buddy thinks i'm crazy though. There's no way he'd spend this money when he could buy an older house on the west side. I really like the Brentwood area though. The pricing on this one seems a little much though.

Absolutely not, that’s huge money and the photos are incredibly manipulated.

Here’s a comparison of the listing view of that giant driveway and front yard compared to google street view — borderline shocking! It’s not nearly as set back from the street as they’re making it look like and your driveway is barely a car long despite looking massive in the photos:

https://i.imgur.com/oGlnaDA.jpg

That’s some serious bullshit right there lol

It’s also on an ugly ass street full of power lines and speed humps. Even if I could afford a 3.7M house that’s an easy pass.

Oh man. I’d be so pissed when I showed up for a viewing.

Dang. The google streetview makes the house look like it was ordered on wish.com

Asian real estate has entered the chat

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...71/833/a41.jpg

The thing is about that photo, is it’s real. Completely possible with camera angles. The one above is totally altered, or using a seriously weird lense.

Whoa, I can't even believe those two pictures.... wow.
You're right, the street doesn't look good at all with all those power lines. I could probably live with the speed bumps though.

Its just taken using a wide angle, all real estate images are to make everything seem bigger and further away.

Its a decent size lot, and that detached garage in the back makes more sense as a carriage home, which is probably what a lot of people are thinking.

I dont see it fetching 3.7mil, but if it does its going to be by someone who just wants a nice move in ready house. The finishing is going to be what sells it, someone who isn't willing to put in the effort themselves will pay it.

Yep, two boys, 14 & 8. I’m on a standard lot in East Van but fortunate to be in a custom build with 4 bedrooms upstairs, open plan on the main floor, then laundry and rec room in basement in my side, plus a 2 bedroom rental suite. The extra bedroom is an office, but I have a large LEGO collection mostly packed up and stashed throughout the house. It would be great to reclaim the rental suite and use that as my LEGO storage/display areas… then I could actually enjoy and make use of my collection!

I think a lot of you guys have your own homes now ranging from 1BR to Detached homes. What do you guys consider a high income for individuals and household?

I've been having a dilemma in my head for the longest time that if you take home $XXX,XXX, you should be able to reasonably afford Y (1BR, 2BR, 3Br, Detached). Maybe it's an unhealthy way of thinking about it, but I find it frustrating how individuals can bring in close to $120,000 a year and have to decide on 2-3 of the 4 options (1-2 BR, retirement, kids, hobbies)

I consider over 500k high income but it’s all relative. No sense being frustrated for something out of your control (the current market conditions). If a bear finds no fish in a puddle he can stay and die or move somewhere else and live abundantly. It might take some sacrifice to get there but it’s entirely possible to choose 4 out of 4 options.

Your obsession with levels is going to be even harder to stomach moving forward with 6% inflation. Once you have kids your hobbies are pretty much gonna be non-existent anyways so that's one less option to worry about. There's never enough income, at least, I always would aim for more. We are bumping our household from 200k last year to 240k this year and it still seems like it's not that much because of the rates going up and so damn much inflation.

This actually applies to quite a few ppl I've talked to, but we measure inflation on the pho-meter and canto cafe-meter. The price for a bowl of large pho is pretty good representation of overall inflation.