From Seattle writer Knute Berger in Crosscut:
The 30th anniversary of Expo 86 is coming in early May, but there doesn’t seem to be much celebrating in Vancouver. Few dispute the fair served its original intention to revitalize the city after an ’80s real estate bust and capitalize on its ties to the Pacific Rim, but the main discussion around the fair’s anniversary seems to be whether its legacy has been golden, or gone sour. …
It’s fair to ask, by hosting an expo and an Olympics, what was Vancouver expecting? British Columbia’s former attorney general, Geoff Plant, writes of those events, “The world accepted our invitation. What did it see? A marvelously beautiful setting, a mild climate, the rule of law, respect for private property rights, a balanced market economy, safe neighborhoods and a tolerant society. Who can blame the world for wanting some of this?”
But Ley’s study reminds that it wasn’t just what newcomers wanted, it’s what BC’s politicians, business and neoliberals wanted, those who desired growth, trade, wealth and put in place specific policies that generated the current result with its rough “collateral” consequences for many who didn’t imagine a gleaming future they couldn’t be a part of.
I for one welcome our glorious new neoliberal society.
Millennials: if you can’t make it in the richest, freest, most tolerant, most meritocratic, most just and fair society in all of history, it’s not society’s fault. It’s yours. Create value and the just society will compensate you. Else, get out the way and watch the rest of us enjoy the fruits of our productivity.
It is indeed YOUR fault. Society owes you nothing, except a decent education, some basic healthcare and some basic pension. Even that is not owed, but forced upon by voters. We hand out far too much in my opinion for far too little (tax) contribution. That is why we have perpetual deficits. Too many entitlements. YOU are responsible for your own life, your career and your health. NOT the state.
More deflecting attention from real solutions. Like rezoning the West Side so people of all income levels can afford to live there.
That’s a naive outlook. Anything built there will be targeted at the wealthy and priced accordingly.
Anything NEW will be marketed to the high end, but build enough new stuff and the price for the older stuff goes down…or in Vancouvers case were demand is so strong at least does not go up in price as fast. There was a recent study out of California that showed regions that built more housing had lower price increases than regions (San Fransisco) that did not.
Exactly.
Here’s the study you refer to, which shows that areas with the least development had the most displacement of low-income people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/12/the-poor-are-better-off-when-we-build-more-housing-for-the-rich/
“In tight markets, poor and middle-class households are forced to compete with one another for scarce homes. So new market-rate housing eases that competition, even if the poor are not the ones living in it. Over time, new housing also filters down to the more affordable supply, because housing becomes less desirable as it ages. That means the luxury housing being built today will contribute to the middle-class supply 30 years from now; it means today’s middle-class housing was luxury housing 30 years ago.”
“If you don’t build much new housing, though, this filtering process breaks down over time. And, in fact, the LAO report shows that rents have risen a lot faster for the poor in coastal California communities that have been stingy with new housing than in counties across the nation that built a lot:”
“The report concludes that boosting private construction would do more to broadly help poor households than expanding small and costly affordable housing programs that can serve only a fraction of them. Those programs also do not resolve the underlying cause of high rents — the housing shortage itself.”
One thing upzoning of large west side lots will do is counter the tendency of the uber rich to build massive wedding cake plaster palaces that sit empty for months. The 1% do not want smaller townhouses and don’t need suites, but such housing products will be attractive to a lot more people who may be part of the 39% below the 1%, which incidently includes quite a few locals. Build them denser in desirable locations and you’ll attract the next 15%.
On balance welcoming immigrants or foreign investors WITH CASH is better than
a) welcoming refugees or immigrants WITHOUT (or little) CASH
b) restricting foreign investment or immigration
Foreign (or any non-BC) cash that arrives here for real estate pays land transfer taxes, property taxes and creates jobs, as new construction creates plenty of local jobs and plenty of tax revenue related to properties and employment. However, WE CAN DO BETTER: We do not monetize the brand BC or Vancouver enough, i.e. we do not charge enough in surcharges to foreign investors especially, such as 15-25% land transfer tax on SF homes or 7.5% to 12.5% on condos, pus triple the property tax. We are also far too lax in enforcing capital gains or income taxes.
Our tax mix is far too focused on income taxes. Many affluent immigrants (and of course all non-resident investors) exploit this and declare income taxes abroad, yet buy the choiciest real estate and pay little in property taxes yet enjoy ESL, education and healthcare for free.
We need to reduce income taxes and increase land transfer taxes, property taxes and consumption taxes to monetize this rational behavior of people with money !
Don’t restrict foreign investment, MONETIZE IT EVEN BETTER !
> On balance welcoming immigrants or foreign investors WITH CASH is better than
> a) welcoming refugees or immigrants WITHOUT (or little) CASH
> b) restricting foreign investment or immigration
Unsure if this is true…
“Refugees pay more income tax than millionaire investor immigrants”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/refugees-pay-more-income-tax-than-millionaire-investor-immigrants-1.2984982
Correct, the benefits are grossly misstated on the income tax side. Not sure if these stats include taxes paid on real estate, taxes paid on construction of real estate, wives and children who often come here,too, and eventually work and certainly buy more real estate. As stated here numerous times we do not monetize this investors’ desire to get a passport here enough. We need to charge more for properties and consumption (and less on incomes) for all, and we need to charge far higher high land transfer taxes and property taxes for non-residents.
A grave mistake by the “conservatives” to lower GST and not income taxes. A flat 10% on the federal and a flat 10% on the provincial level would be the right strategy and elimination of all corporate and other subsidies.
On balance adding population to a region will
a) drive up demand for jobs, housing and goods and services
b) create a need for more publicly funded infrastructure
The result, taken to an extreme (see Vancouver) will result in a low wage (22nd in Canada for median family income) economy plagued with high prices for everything from shelter in terms of rent and housing costs and a nagging infrastructure deficit (worst traffic congestion in North America). The provincial debt is rising steeply as the cost of bridges, sky train expansion and a rather large dam are adding billions.
Meanwhile, business owners are feasting on a cheap local wage market and rapidly rising property prices. Thank you so much for high immigration rates, with or without cash they’re doing a bang up job of creating a steadily worsening quality of life in this city.
Immigration per is not the problem, and is in fact part of the solution. Fixing or eliminating the various regularly abused “investor” immigrant programs and identifying the foreign incomes of oversees buyers spending more than five million on a house are part of the solution too. But don’t expect a dramatic 2/3rds drop in the price of housing as the result.
Real wages have not increased and that is also a big problem. There are many economists and researchers who have published very well thought out recommendations recently in papers like the Globe and Mail on this topic and things like diversifying the economy away from too heavy reliance on natural resources and tackling new 21st Century industrial strategies, financial services and fostering greater innovation, and they should be heeded by governments in a new policy thrust starting at the national level. Jim Basillie and William A. MacDonald are two of them.
You also need to follow the money (political donations) to see why our economic policies are the way they are.
I’m grappling with the alternative future (post Expo 86) that Berger would have preferred. Should Vancouver – and by implication, other cities with railyards in their hearts – NOT have planned the way it did, with arguably one of the best examples of inner-city densification with abundant amenities?
Yes, we are now suffering in terms of housing affordability the results of many decisions made over decades, and the efforts that continue to making Vancouver more attractive, livable and amenity-rich rather than grotty has probably abetted that process.
Conversely, had it stayed with heavy industry in False Creek, Vancouver would likely not have attracted the population it has, from all over the world. The message seems to be, keep it ugly and polluted and “they” will stay away and our (limited and deteriorating) housing stock would be so much more affordable.
No major city that I am aware of has made that choice – NYC, London, Paris, Barcelona, etc. Why should Vancouver have done so?
You’re assuming it all comes down to whether or not false creek was redeveloped? I think not. The Mainland Chinese are laundering their money here because Canada has the easiest immigrant laws, easiest path to owning real estate, cheapest buy your passport here program (800K). Also it is the warmest city in canada and the closest to Asian. Has absolutely nothing to do with the planning of False Creek. Without the political will of the Provincial and Federal Governments to sell us out over the years, none of this would have happened.
There was another option. Instead of the province selling off the Expo lands for less than the cost to remediate the soil, which the public is still saddled with, this huge site could have been managed to provide housing options and amenities that benefit the local citizens. However, the public got little to no return on this precious site lost our soul in the process.
Indeed the city should have sold off the land piece by piece, for more money. That would not have reduced affordability, though. Yaletown is quite well designed with highrises, parks, walkways, subway and shopping/commercial. I could envision nothing better.
Price is a function of supply and demand. Demand can be lowered by higher pricing, for example taxes. The government needs to prefer residents over non-residents. As such higher land transfer taxes, higher property taxes and/or fare more rigorous tax enforcement is required for non-resident investors !
Don’t restrict foreign investment, just monetize it better !