this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
66 points (90.2% liked)

British Columbia

1364 readers
17 users here now

News, highlights and more relating to this great province!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If you listen to Canadian politicians, the solution to our housing crisis seems to be some combination of immigration reform and a herculean countrywide building effort.

But Paul Kershaw, a public policy professor at the University of British Columbia and founder of the affordability advocacy group Generation Squeeze, says the emphasis on increasing housing supply obscures an issue politicians are less likely to address.

Namely, that we, as a country, have become addicted to ever-rising home prices, largely because we've been conditioned to see our homes as financial assets.

"There are multiple things we need to do [to reduce prices], and more supply is one of them," said Kershaw. But funding announcements for building projects are a "way to organize our concern about the housing system so that we don't have to … look in the mirror — particularly homeowners who have been homeowners for a long time — and say: 'How are we entangled?'"

He said the current system incentivizes extracting profit from real estate, rather than prioritizing that everyone has access to affordable shelter.

"We need clarity about what we want from housing," said Kershaw. "And it has to start with: 'We don't want these prices to rise any more.'"

top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 59 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Homes can't be affordable AND an investment. Investments have to grow above inflation to be successful. Affordable homes have to grow at our below inflation to be successful.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 24 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The fact that so few people understand this basic math is a core part of the problem.

If you want housing to be 50% cheaper, housing prices have to drop by 50%.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 months ago

But... but muh equities!

/s

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 20 points 7 months ago

So you're saying that homes shouldn't be the main investment people have to make to ensure their future stability? Sounds right to me!

[–] riplin@lemm.ee 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Housing should not be an investment. In Japan they aren’t. In fact, they’re depreciating assets and they’re doing just fine.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"Fine" is a bit of a stretch.

The average unit size per person is absolutely tiny, North Americans would revolt if that was what was available here outside of the downtown cores of cities. Detached 3 bedroom houses in Japan are usually only 50-70 square meters (540-750 square feet), 2 bedroom apartments at 400 square feet are common.

These detached houses often come on lots of 300-400 square feet, with no yard since it literally takes two levels to hit 750 square feet even with 100% land footprint.

I'm not saying Japan is bad, but they have a lot of their own economic and mental health problems caused by work life balance and housing.

Tl;dr The average American wouldn't fit in a standard Japanese bathroom.

[–] riplin@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That’s due to space restrictions. Japan has a lot less space than the US does, especially if you want to live in a large city. That’s not the case in the US. The point is, it’s not the size of the housing that makes their real estate depreciating assets.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What does Japan do to make it a depreciating asset then?

[–] riplin@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Looks to be technological advancement due to earthquake resistance, an abundance of supply and low property taxes.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

The abundance of supply is really easy with a declining population. It also stalls your economy and causes a ton of other social problems.

Japan real estate was a massive appreciating asset back in the 80s when the population was increasing.

Tech advancement regarding earthquakes shouldn't have any significant impact. It's not the building that appreciates, it's the land.

If anything, low property taxes make it a better investment. Reccuring costs reduce profit.

So while you're kinda right with the supply situation, it doesn't help sort our the problems here.

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

For me, it's the fact that once my mortgage is paid off, I only have to worry about property taxes and utilities to keep a roof over my head. Worst case, it's an asset that I can either leverage or sell if I really need to.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're gonna pay off your mortgage? The bank just winked at me and said 'don't worry, we can bill your estate for the rest.'

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I got in just before the housing market exploded in my area. As long as I don't move, it'll be paid off before I hit retirement age. Whether or not I can retire is another story, but with the house paid off, I might be able to get away with part time or consulting or something.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

That's pretty much my plan as well :/

[–] xploit@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It would be fun to see what would happen if single citizen/PR over 18 wasn't allowed to own more than 2 properties per province, 1 per region and corporations couldn't own anything that isn't an apartment building.

I'm sure it's not that simple to proof it against abuse those useless realtor wankstains like to come up with, perhaps break-up that oligopoly at the same time?

It would still allow couples to technically own 4 homes which does sound like a lot in the long run, but it could be tweaked as things shape up.

[–] Poutinetown@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Corporations couldn't own anything that isn't an apartment building

Bingo. REITs are a major factor behind rising housing prices, but a lot of the expensive housing these days are due to the high cost of rent at apartment buildings, so allowing them to own apartment buildings would still be an issue.

[–] Someone@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately there isn't really much of an alternative other than government ownership. I don't think there's any issue with publicly owned apartments, but we obviously don't have the resources or political will to build enough housing in the short/mid term so corporate ownership is kind of a necessity.

[–] Poutinetown@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We should have federally owned, provincially owned, municipally owned, pensions funds-owned, and non-profit owned housing. Having a large number of non-market housing from many different sources is the best way to move towards the Vienna model.

[–] Poutinetown@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

Best way in the sense that the money will not be dependent on a single source but multiple sources.

[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

But..but that would mean we truly have a housing crisis!

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 months ago

If you listen to Canadian politicians, the solution to our housing crisis seems to be some combination of immigration reform and a herculean countrywide building effort.

Thankfully BC (Ravi Kahlon) is not this dumb, and housing reform has been slow but steady.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago
[–] Hootz@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

Lol this has been a thing forever, this is why things need to change.