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 
lead82 said:
3)Housing:
The housing file is also a failure. The Liberals have failed with taxing housing and foreign investors and the various incentives have driven prices up not down. Yet Carney just stole Poiliviers signature policy to cut GST on new homes. While I agree with Carney we need more rentals, I don’t trust the Liberals to deliver here.
Click to expand...
One problem with increasing the supply of housing is that the value of existing housing will drop - as intended. But as the value of existing housing declines, the equity of homeowners drops, meaning that homeowners who use their their homes as collateral for loans (lines of credit) or that expect to sell their homes to fund for their retirements will take a hit. "Too bad Boomers" we may exclaim, but it’s not all boomers, but also GenX and increasingly millennials that are relying on inflated housing values to stay afloat financially. And then there's those underwater who bought on a high, but now cannot get financing on the committed value, leading to defaults and lawsuits from mortgage lenders, sellers and builders.

As a parent with two adult kids about to launch, a drop in the value of Canada's housing through dramatically increased supply is necessary, but unless this is well planned out there may be serious unintended consequences.
 
I'd like government to make mortgage lending stricter. Larger downpayment requirements and shorter amortization. Reducing buying power will take steam out of the housing market and reduce financial system risk for the needed correction in house prices. This addresses the demand side of the problem .

The supply side is multifaceted. We need more skilled trades, we need to increase construction sector productivity, we need to reduce development charges and shift burden to the property tax base (hello land value tax), and encourage the development of rental housing. I think encouraging coop housing would also be helpful.
 
afransen said:
I'd like government to make mortgage lending stricter. Larger downpayment requirements and shorter amortization. Reducing buying power will take steam out of the housing market and reduce financial system risk for the needed correction in house prices. This addresses the demand side of the problem .

The supply side is multifaceted. We need more skilled trades, we need to increase construction sector productivity, we need to reduce development charges and shift burden to the property tax base (hello land value tax), and encourage the development of rental housing. I think encouraging coop housing would also be helpful.
Click to expand...
The problem in the housing market right now is that buyers can't qualify for mortgages needed to finance new-construction housing. Why in the world would we make it even harder to qualify for mortgages?! It would just restrict supply even further.

By forcing people into not being able to buy doesn't remove demand. Those people still exist. They are just forced into overly conservative lending practices and will be sidelined to renting for longer, increasing the perceived unaffordability of the housing market.

Canada has an extremely low mortgage delinquency rate, the problem in housing is not that people are taking out oversized mortgages.

The Liberal platform is right in calling for a review to mortgage lending practices to analyze opportunities to increase borrowing power of buyers. Canada's mortgage lending rules are fairly conservative and restrict access to capital in the housing market to actually address supply shortages.

If you want to address the demand side of things, you need to address immigration, as that is the only thing that can slow household formation rates
 
I’d like government to invest in far better income redistribution than they do now…

…but I‘ll be just happy if they don’t send us to Trumpland when they get in. And /glares at the Conservatives.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Makes sense. I'd like to think there is a benefit to having those who makes the laws being lawyers themselves. Health departments likely benefit from having doctors, such as Dr. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health from 2015 to 2017) and Dr. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of State for Public Health from 2003 to 2006 and Minister of Mental Health and Addictions from 2021 to 2023). Former soldiers as Minister of National Defence is not uncommon, though Harjit Sajjan wasn't very good.
Click to expand...
Pros and cons. Effective leadership and listening to those who do know can be just as effective. The CEO of a hospital is not always a doctor.

Strictly speaking, all elected members are 'lawmakers'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
lead82 said:
Overall to me this is less about voting for the Tories and more of its time to fire the current government for their poor performance. Yes there is a risk the new guys will mess up but the current set already have IMHO.

In any case, given where the polls are we are likely headed for a majority Liberal government unless something drastic happens in this last week.
Click to expand...
The Liberals deserve criticism but to me, the idea of the Conservatives is better than their reality. They have a pretty weak bench. Veteran political commentators struggle to even name a possible finance minister out of the CPC caucus. Who would even be a part of a Poilievre cabinet? Michael Cooper? Andrew Lawton? Melissa Lantsman? PP is filling the caucus with attack dogs. Any members with experience and know-how get shoved aside.

Case in point is how a long time member of the BC legislature and former provincial cabinet minister was disqualified as a candidate for unknown reasons in favour of a 25 year old with no political experience.

The new slogan now seems to be "Axe the Inflation Tax". Just unserious all around.

1745254875566.png
 
Northern Light said:
? Uh..... the CMHC financing programs are virtually the only reason anything is being built right now, and certainly no affordable housing project is viable without them.
Click to expand...
My prediction of the Liberals housing platform is that none of what they proposed in their budget actually happens, or if it does, it won't amount to much extra supply on any timely basis.

But, they'll add additional funding to the (much-desired by industry) CMHC programs which will actually result in a lot of new construction starts. Much more so than the above programs.

Campaigning on CMHC financing isn't sexy though, especially when trying to attract the ABC vote from the NDPs.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The problem in the housing market right now is that buyers can't qualify for mortgages needed to finance new-construction housing. Why in the world would we make it even harder to qualify for mortgages?! It would just restrict supply even further.
Click to expand...

They don't qualify for mortgages for good reason, the market price of housing remains misaligned with median incomes. I'm all for incomes going up as opposed to property prices coming down, but one way or the other, the current market isn't tenable and more permissive lending is not the solution.

innsertnamehere said:
By forcing people into not being able to buy doesn't remove demand.
Click to expand...

Um, in the context of 'supply and demand' yes, it does, if you reduce the number of buyers for a product, in theory, the sellers should have to lower their price to make a sale, once the price declines sufficiently, buyers return to the market.

innsertnamehere said:
Those people still exist. They are just forced into overly conservative lending practices and will be sidelined to renting for longer, increasing the perceived unaffordability of the housing market.
Click to expand...

No, they are sidelined to due to lack of income, and excessive land/house pricing.

innsertnamehere said:
Canada has an extremely low mortgage delinquency rate, the problem in housing is not that people are taking out oversized mortgages.
Click to expand...

Also not correct. What has happened is that a huge number of bankruptcy/mortgage delinquencies were addressed by allowing re-financing over significantly more years.

The number of Canadians who now have 40-year mortgages should both shock and appall.

Back in 2023, this Bank of Canada report suggested 2/3 of mortgage holders were struggling to meet their payment obligations:

FCAC Report: The financial well-being of Canadian homeowners with mortgages - Canada.ca

This report examines and compares key measures of financial well-being for 3 groups of Canadians: homeowners with mortgages, homeowners without mortgages, and renters.
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca

This is also from 2023:

1745274670665.png



Canadians also have record or near record levels of household debt and well above OECD norms.

We've kept the boat above the waterline by doing a lot of bailing.

innsertnamehere said:
If you want to address the demand side of things, you need to address immigration, as that is the only thing that can slow household formation rates
Click to expand...

That would certainly help. Though I would specify that the TFW category remains of deep concern, the suggestion from the Liberals is getting the number of non-permanent residents/citizens back down to under 5%, but the historic norm is under 3%. If you removed 2% of the population of Canada over 2 years, or about 840,000 people you would definitely see prices moderate.

We could (and should) also outlaw short-term rentals entirely. This would bring over 10,000 units to market in Toronto in short order.

Of course, if the above were sustained, prices would decline be 25% or more...........and a whole lot (more) mortgagees would be under water.

***

I would like to see 25% down payments, and no mortgage insurance mandates.

This would naturally tighten underwriting and would substantially protect people against real estate price volatility.

I would like to also see mortgages structured with 25-year amortization limits and clear requirement that on a first mortgage a buyer must agree to a 5-year term (or shorter if they are able top pay it off), and be a 45% equity holder at the 5-year mark.
 
Last edited:
I oppose any kind of public assistance for home ownership. I think we should rather invest a lot more in social housing or rent-geared-to-income housing. I have a friend who is 69 and cannot retire, because you cannot apply unless you are already destitute, and then you still have to wait 8 to 10 years for an apartment.
 
Bayer said:
I oppose any kind of public assistance for home ownership. I think we should rather invest a lot more in social housing or rent-geared-to-income housing. I have a friend who is 69 and cannot retire, because you cannot apply unless you are already destitute, and then you still have to wait 8 to 10 years for an apartment.
Click to expand...

I will add the proviso - support for regular, private-for profit homes. Home owner in and on itself isn't a bad thing to aspire to - and there are local and international alternate models.

AoD
 
Northern Light said:
I would like to also see mortgages structured with 25-year amortization limits and clear requirement that on a first mortgage a buyer must agree to a 5-year term (or shorter if they are able top pay it off), and be a 45% equity holder at the 5-year mark.
Click to expand...
How does this work? If you buy an $800,000 house with a 25% down payment and get a mortgage at 5% amortized over 25 years, you will be roughly a 33% equity holder at the end of the first five year term (you'd still owe $530K and hold $270K in equity, assuming for simplicity no increase in the value of the house). You'd have to have found an extra $90K to get you up to owning 45% of the equity ($360K).

Following the regular payment schedule, you'd cross 45% sometime in your 11th year.
 
Last edited:
thettctransitfanatic said:
Conservative platform is out. Last party to release a platform.

Click to expand...

There are a smattering of good ideas buried in that doc........... which is loooong, one area they didn't need to copy Liberal habits...

But the bad ideas that will never fly........are quite abundant.......

Defunding Englsh CBC TV is needlessly controversial and stupid.

But its the tough on crime stuff that includes the most problems......it has a series of proposals that aside from not being grounded in evidence, would almost certainly fail their first constitutional test.

Life sentences for Fentanyl trafficking. No chance.

Three strikes laws, which the U.S. has largely been un-doing as it was expensive, resulted in severe overcrowding of prisons, and wasn't effective, not to mention terribly unjust in some cases. I don't see that passing
constitutional muster here either.

Jailing people in homeless encampments if they've been cleared repeatedly.

If a convicted murderer withholds information on where the bodies are.........they can be held indefinitely........ no way does that pass muster and it directly conflicts with the right not to self incriminate.

Just so much junk.

****

There's a proposal to expand the port at Churchhilll and make it an icebreaker base. While I'm open to this in theory, there's a very sensitive whale estuary/calving ground nearby to keep in mind. Also the Hudson's Bay polar bear population is reliant on intact sea ice.

****

Its a shame that some genuinely decent ideas are buried in a morass of really, really bad ones.

I also find some of the costing assumptions suspect.........
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top