|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
afransen
Senior Member
This almost reads like a phishing attempt.We do not seem to have an appropriate and/or active 'urban design' thread so I post this here. Some interesting ideas here:
60-bancs-publics.pps
groups.google.com
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Unless I don’t understand something, doesn’t this mean that those buying market value condos will now also be covering a portion of the cost of someone else’s now affordable condo? If I’m right, then new condo buyers will now be disproportionately financing Toronto council’s affordable housing initiative.
Wouldn‘t the smarter move be for the city to buy those units and add them to the TCHC inventory and thus not saddle new home buyers with what‘s essentially a new levy?
zang
Senior Member
First off, the units won't have the same fit and finish, so they cost the developer less.
Next, this covers condos as well, not just rentals. And I'm assuming that there'll be a purchase clause banning purchase for rental and that the property be occupied for the majority of the year.
Third, these are targeted at low and middle income, not just low-income (<$91k/year). Meaning developers can't just sell to high-income earners as they have been for the past ten years.
Fourth, what's the levy new home buyers already pay because of speculative purchasing, microhoteliers and landlords in massive overvaluation of property in this city?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I don't think the savings on cheaper countertops, carpets and appliances is going to save the developer much. If the developer cannot sell the condos at the market price then he must increase the cost of everyone else's condo in the building, meaning the market priced buyers are covering Toronto's affordable housing costs. That does not seem fair.
For true fix for affordable housing is to follow Berlin's example and for the city to buy, build or expropriate more TCHC housing that the city will own and thus control the rents, creating market pressure on all rents. That and the city must expedite private and public condo/apartment construction in the underutilized grey and brown fields across the city.
Rimsky44
Active Member
Many ways it could play out, of which what you suggested is one potential outcome (end-user/buyers pay more to subsidize).
Another potential outcome/ impact is the developer ends up buying the land at lower valuations as inherently the *value* of the land has declined as your cap rate is limited on any redevelopment (controlled rent) and revenues from sale also limited (controlled sale price) - whether this decline in land value fully offsets the subsidy end-users/buyers have to pay is
but I'd suspect the end user ends up paying more.Given the lack of supply vs. demand for housing, I wouldn't be surprised the end-user bears almost all of the cost ultimately.
zang
Senior Member
Oh, so only the rich get to own condos in the city?
You’re literally saying that the rich should be the only ones with easy access to subway stations, and the downtown, and that we keep the low/middle income away from the areas of most convenience and affordable transit (pretty much the vast majority all of the condos built these days are being built near subways).
Also, the TCHC doesn’t do ownership. If they were, both the rich AND the poor would be subsidizing those properties through taxes.
Last edited:
picard102
Senior Member
A levy on the rich. Not mad at it.
Not mad at it.Rimsky44
Active Member
A levy on the rich.
I think Toronto's own study is being cheeky too. Page 16/51 [Edited to link to latest report] (https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...nPotentialImpactsInclusionaryZoningPolicy.pdf) shows no impact to end users at $1000psf.
IMO, given there are less market priced units available for sale, the supply curve shifts left. Your new equilibrium isn't $1000psf for the market units, but something higher (that lower number of people can afford to pay). I don't see it as a levy on the rich, its just new supply/ demand curve and less people can afford to buy condos!
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Condo buyers are just regular Torontonians, hardly the rich.
Affordable to rent is possible, but you can’t legislate affordable to buy, at least not past the first buyer. The buyer will just flip it for the market price at a later date. Unless we’re putting restrictions on what someone can do with their own property?
Last edited:
zang
Senior Member
Inclusionary Zoning is being geared towards low and middle income for a reason.
We put restrictions on what people do with a lot of their own property, last I checked. Hell, even non governmental groups get a say in other people's properties (see; Neighbourhood Associations).
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Unless you're in a co-op there is no neighbourhood association that can or will prevent you for selling your property to the highest bidder. If the city forces a condo developer to make a percentage of the units affordable the city will need to decide who gets to buy them, some sort of means test I assume. So, a young family qualifies and buys the affordable condo. Three years later they want to move, and sell it at whatever the market will pay, likely making them a hefty profit. Unless the city owns the condo or puts in a contract that the unit can only be sold back to the city, there is nothing in municipal law that would force the condo owner to sell at below the market. If there was, the condo owner can sue the city for investment loss.
Look, with an ever increasing demand, if the city wants to reduce housing prices for both purchase and rental there is only one way; increase supply. Take a drive along Eglinton from Laird to Kennedy and there are tens of thousands of mostly empty parking lots and greyfield, seemingly struggling big box retailers. You could fit a dozen Regent Park sized housing developments on this corridor. Start building now. Same goes for Kennedy going north from Eglinton to the 401... it's all parking lots. Build housing, don't wait for speculators to see how the Eglinton Crosstown LRT goes, build housing now, expropriate as needed. That's how you make housing affordable, by driving up supply in excess of demand.
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
It's essentially a lottery. I don't think it makes sense...
zang
Senior Member
And doing so ends up creating ghettos that ultimately get underserviced and over-policed. We've done this all before with terrible results (see the aforementioned Regent Park 20 years ago). Doing so also ignores the point of IZ; mixed income levels in a given area.
Mixed income housing is sound city building.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
JMFC, where did I say we’re building swaths of TCHC housing? Just build market value units across the entire city, with zoning to push a larger portion of 2-3 bedroom units and the market price will come down. Either you’re thick or I’ve lost the ability to convey an idea. I think we’d best part ways on this topic. Ciao.