News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
degrandprix said:
One cost not included in the Zoocasa report is property taxes, which pushes the monthly expense higher for owners. Yet the study also did not include the ongoing advantage of paying down the principal with each mortgage payment.

How is this "study" even newsworthy then? These are two of the most obvious parts of the home ownership equation. Nice work Edmonton Journal..
Click to expand...
News articles, particularly in the print media are not as rigourous as they used to be and important points do tend to get missed or glossed over a lot these days.

I suspect there is some offset between these two items, but that may have gotten edited or left out because this would take away valuable space for car ads.
 
^
The second realtor quoted did point out the principal retirement of the mortgage as a plus. He didn’t comment on the missing expenses - everything from painting to carpet repair to reroofing to appliance and hot water tank and furnace repairs and replacement - often when it’s most inconvenient and sometimes necessitating the use of borrowed money.

The other thing that always gets ignored is the opportunity cost of paying more to own than renting. Investing that money every month would provide a tidy chunk of cash over whatever time frame is being looked at and, using RRSP’s and TFSA’s would, like appreciation and principal repayment on the home/mortgage, also be tax free.
 
NSP for Snowberry, a proposed neighborhood halfway between the south edge of the Henday and Beaumont:
1770673853028.png
 
kcantor said:
^
The second realtor quoted did point out the principal retirement of the mortgage as a plus. He didn’t comment on the missing expenses - everything from painting to carpet repair to reroofing to appliance and hot water tank and furnace repairs and replacement - often when it’s most inconvenient and sometimes necessitating the use of borrowed money.

The other thing that always gets ignored is the opportunity cost of paying more to own than renting. Investing that money every month would provide a tidy chunk of cash over whatever time frame is being looked at and, using RRSP’s and TFSA’s would, like appreciation and principal repayment on the home/mortgage, also be tax free.
Click to expand...
Yes, some things like new carpet and paint are more discretionary and part of the appeal of owning is being able to customize or upgrade your home which can also increase its value. Others like a reroofing are not, but these also need to be done on rented homes. So landlords who get hit by these big bills may try to recover some or all of it through increased rent, which can also go up unexpectedly and at inconvenient times. If necessary owners may be able to finance major repairs through HELOCs which allows them to get a fairly good interest rate.

Yes, financial markets have continued to increase while at least in our more expensive cities in Canada, housing has not for the last few years, but if you owned a house in Toronto from 2012 to 2022 your value increased by more than the market then, so there is not always an opportunity cost. Also, while its hard to predict the future, after years of not great return I feel at some point in the next few years Edmonton housing values will have a big adjustment upward and financial markets which have had a very strong 5 years may go the other way or languish.

So perhaps in fairness to the newspaper, there are many variables here some of which offset and it is hard to put this all into a short article.
 
policyenthusiast said:
A non-zero amount. If the lot structure is similar to Edgemont and other new neighbourhoods, they put downward pressure on property taxes, not upward.
Click to expand...
Downward pressure compared to less dense sprawl. Downward pressure if all potential residents don’t move here if unbuilt.

But net increase in infrastructure deficit still.

And not as much downward pressure as that same population moving into our existing footprint through infill.

And how’s the pressure on traffic with their longer than average commutes? How’s their utilization of transit and active modes…. Are they moving us closer or farther from our 50% city goal?

This still digs our debt hole deeper. “Not as bad as less bad sprawl” shouldn’t be framed as good. We should be delaying new sprawl as long as possible so existing areas can densify more. Induced demand is as true of housing as it is of transportation modes.
 
^^
I remember when Blue Quill looked like that before Wimpey did the site and underground servicing while some said we shouldn't allow such sprawl to take plane and others said "don't worry about it, who the h3ll would want to live that far out"? The answer to the latter of course is to look at the subsequent growth not only in Edmonton but in St. Albert and Stony Plain and Spruce Grove and Devon and Leduc and the County of Strathcona and Fort Saskatchewan...
 
Last edited:
As long as people want/prefer single homes and more people continue to come here, the city and suburbs are going to have to continue to expand.

We all have different memories of the city based on our own situations. I remember when 137 Ave was the edge of the city for many years, hard to imagine now.
 
David A said:
As long as people want/prefer single homes and more people continue to come here, the city and suburbs are going to have to continue to expand.

We all have different memories of the city based on our own situations. I remember when 137 Ave was the edge of the city for many years, hard to imagine now.
Click to expand...
When I was young, my parents bought in the brand new community of Castle Downs (or Castledowns, it was spelled two ways back then) and a number of the roads were gravel and 2-lane. Back then the 20-minute drive seemed too far for Edmonton.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top