Article content
Even though the federal government has focused on affordable housing in their new budget, the price of real estate remains unattainable in some parts of the country.
Canada’s politicians could (but won’t) do these 5 things to make housing more affordable
Even though the federal government has focused on affordable housing in their new budget, the price of real estate remains unattainable in some parts of the country.
Many young people are completely priced out unless they’re willing to move to another province, while others are taking on record debt levels. Unfortunately, real estate has become a status symbol for success and many Canadians are going all-in.
The funny thing is, if any government really wanted to make housing more affordable, they would just have to implement a few hard rules.
Doing so would be difficult and stir up controversy. The change would mean falling house prices at a time when owners have come to expect prices always to rise. Hence, the politician to drop housing prices would risk being voted out in the next election.
Plus, anyone who works in real estate would claim it’s the end of the world (or the end of their profits) and use every avenue possible to fight the changes.
For purely entertainment value, let’s look at some real estate rules that would actually make housing more affordable.
Different governments at the federal and provincial levels have introduced multiple policies to address housing affordability, but every new rule seems to only make things more expensive. Let’s quickly highlight some of the rules that have come into play over the last 20 years:
Technically speaking, many of these rules made housing “more affordable” since more buyers were able to enter the market. However, with more buyers, there’s more competition, so that just increased prices further.
Currently, CMHC insured mortgages have a maximum amortization period of 25 years. This means that homeowners have 25 years to pay off their mortgage.
If you have a down payment of at least 20 per cent, you can get an amortization period of 30 years.
Let’s say you’re trying to buy a home that costs $800,000, and you have a 10 per cent down payment. If you were to secure a mortgage at four per cent with a 25-year amortization period, your monthly payment would be $3,787.35.
More from MoneyWise
What happens if that mortgage term is reduced? With a shorter amortization period, your monthly carrying costs go up.
For a 20-year amortization period, the payment increases to $4,350.57. A $563 monthly difference would greatly affect how much you can borrow.
This drastic change would immediately price people out of the market and force others to take on smaller mortgages. However, it could be a benefit in the long run as there would be less demand, which would hopefully reduce prices.
Let’s be honest. There’s a lot of mortgage fraud out there. Some mortgage brokers will push through your application with false documents as long as you pay them a fee. They might even loan you the funds to meet the mortgage requirements, which you would then immediately pay back to them once you secure your lending. While this may or may not happen often, it’s clearly a problem. It allows people to qualify for a mortgage when they wouldn’t under traditional methods.
What if there was a rule where every mortgage application had to be verified through a non-biased, third-party company? The cost of this service would be charged back to the financial institution providing the mortgage. Doing this would mean less fraud, and lenders would only be approving clients that can actually afford their payments.
I’m not suggesting that there are a lot of corrupt mortgage brokers out there. But despite what financial institutions say, there’s clearly a problem with mortgage fraud. Lenders would hate this idea as it would increase their costs and real estate boards would strongly be opposed too since it could potentially lower how many people can afford to buy a home.
Currently, the minimum down payment for a CMHC-insured mortgage is five per cent, while uninsured mortgages require 20 per cent. What if we raised that to 15 per cent for insured mortgages, and 30 per cent for uninsured?
As soon as you increase the down payment requirement, many potential buyers will be priced out. While that may seem unfair, it’ll reduce the demand for housing. With fewer buyers available, prices would naturally drop. Of course, this assumes supply stays the same.
Anyone who’s just starting to save their down payment would likely be strongly opposed to this, but this is another example of short-term pain leading to long-term gain.
Currently, capital gains on investment properties are taxed at 50 per cent. This is no different than other investments you hold. However, to reduce housing costs, how about increasing the capital gains tax on investment properties to 75 per cent or even 100 per cent. With this increased tax rate, people would likely be less interested in owning an investment property.
What if an investment property you sold increased in value by $100,000? Under the current system, 50 per cent of your gain ($50,000) would be added to your income and taxed at your marginal tax rate. Under my suggestion, $75,000, or the entire $100,000 profit, would be taxed.
Or what about increasing property taxes on a sliding scale for each additional property you own? For example, if you own two properties, your property taxes double. When you own three, your taxes triple. These rules would lower the demand for investment properties and leave more inventory available for end users.
It would be great for people who just want to own a home for themselves, but investors and realtors would be up in arms as their profit margins would drop.
The current system where you bid blindly on real estate is broken. None of the bidders know what numbers they are competing against, forcing them to bid higher in the hopes of securing a home. This system needs to be changed immediately.
If every potential buyer knew what the current bids were, they could just offer their maximum. If someone else decides to bid more, then it wasn’t meant to be. No potential buyer would be disappointed knowing they went in with their maximum offer, but someone bid higher. The seller still gets the top dollar for their home. It’s a win-win, right?
Starting in 2023, home sellers will have the option to reveal bid prices. However, since it’s not mandatory to disclose the prices, sellers will likely continue to keep bids a secret.
Some people that work in real estate argue that getting rid of blind bidding is not suitable for privacy reasons. However, the end of blind bidding would only reveal the numbers for the bids. Personal details such as the bidders’ names would not be disclosed.
As long as politicians are more concerned about winning elections and individuals working in real estate are focused on profits, housing affordability will always be an issue.
Rising interest rates may slow down demand, but prices are already at all-time highs. Any future rate hikes will be slow, and in any case, mortgage borrowers are required to pass the “stress test” that ensures they can handle rate hikes of up to two percentage points.
None of the currently proposed solutions appear to be effective. Something drastic needs to happen. If we do nothing, potential homebuyers will continue to struggle.
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Housing affordability is a key issue in the provincial election campaign in British Columbia, particularly in major centres.
Here are some statistics about housing in B.C. from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s 2024 Rental Market Report, issued in January, and the B.C. Real Estate Association’s August 2024 report.
Average residential home price in B.C.: $938,500
Average price in greater Vancouver (2024 year to date): $1,304,438
Average price in greater Victoria (2024 year to date): $979,103
Average price in the Okanagan (2024 year to date): $748,015
Average two-bedroom purpose-built rental in Vancouver: $2,181
Average two-bedroom purpose-built rental in Victoria: $1,839
Average two-bedroom purpose-built rental in Canada: $1,359
Rental vacancy rate in Vancouver: 0.9 per cent
How much more do new renters in Vancouver pay compared with renters who have occupied their home for at least a year: 27 per cent
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.
The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
VANCOUVER – Voters along the south coast of British Columbia who have not cast their ballots yet will have to contend with heavy rain and high winds from an incoming atmospheric river weather system on election day.
Environment Canada says the weather system will bring prolonged heavy rain to Metro Vancouver, the Sunshine Coast, Fraser Valley, Howe Sound, Whistler and Vancouver Island starting Friday.
The agency says strong winds with gusts up to 80 kilometres an hour will also develop on Saturday — the day thousands are expected to go to the polls across B.C. — in parts of Vancouver Island and Metro Vancouver.
Wednesday was the last day for advance voting, which started on Oct. 10.
More than 180,000 voters cast their votes Wednesday — the most ever on an advance voting day in B.C., beating the record set just days earlier on Oct. 10 of more than 170,000 votes.
Environment Canada says voters in the area of the atmospheric river can expect around 70 millimetres of precipitation generally and up to 100 millimetres along the coastal mountains, while parts of Vancouver Island could see as much as 200 millimetres of rainfall for the weekend.
An atmospheric river system in November 2021 created severe flooding and landslides that at one point severed most rail links between Vancouver’s port and the rest of Canada while inundating communities in the Fraser Valley and B.C. Interior.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.
The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
British Columbia voters face no shortage of policies when it comes to tackling the province’s housing woes in the run-up to Saturday’s election, with a clear choice for the next government’s approach.
David Eby’s New Democrats say the housing market on its own will not deliver the homes people need, while B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad saysgovernment is part of the problem and B.C. needs to “unleash” the potential of the private sector.
But Andy Yan, director of the City Program at Simon Fraser University, said the “punchline” was that neither would have a hand in regulating interest rates, the “giant X-factor” in housing affordability.
“The one policy that controls it all just happens to be a policy that the province, whoever wins, has absolutely no control over,” said Yan, who made a name for himself scrutinizing B.C.’s chronic affordability problems.
Some metrics have shown those problems easing, with Eby pointing to what he said was a seven per cent drop in rent prices in Vancouver.
But Statistics Canada says 2021 census data shows that 25.5 per cent of B.C. households were paying at least 30 per cent of their income on shelter costs, the worst for any province or territory.
Yan said government had “access to a few levers” aimed at boosting housing affordability, and Eby has been pulling several.
Yet a host of other factors are at play, rates in particular, Yan said.
“This is what makes housing so frustrating, right? It takes time. It takes decades through which solutions and policies play out,” Yan said.
Rustad, meanwhile, is running on a “deregulation” platform.
He has pledged to scrap key NDP housing initiatives, including the speculation and vacancy tax, restrictions on short-term rentals,and legislation aimed at boosting small-scale density in single-family neighbourhoods.
Green Leader Sonia Furstenau, meanwhile, says “commodification” of housing by large investors is a major factor driving up costs, and her party would prioritize people most vulnerable in the housing market.
Yan said it was too soon to fully assess the impact of the NDP government’s housing measures, but there was a risk housing challenges could get worse if certain safeguards were removed, such as policies that preserve existing rental homes.
If interest rates were to drop, spurring a surge of redevelopment, Yan said the new homes with higher rents could wipe the older, cheaper units off the map.
“There is this element of change and redevelopment that needs to occur as a city grows, yet the loss of that stock is part of really, the ongoing challenges,” Yan said.
Given the external forces buffeting the housing market, Yan said the question before voters this month was more about “narrative” than numbers.
“Who do you believe will deliver a better tomorrow?”
Yan said the market has limits, and governments play an important role in providing safeguards for those most vulnerable.
The market “won’t by itself deal with their housing needs,” Yan said, especially given what he described as B.C.’s “30-year deficit of non-market housing.”
IS HOUSING THE ‘GOVERNMENT’S JOB’?
Craig Jones, associate director of the Housing Research Collaborative at the University of British Columbia, echoed Yan, saying people are in “housing distress” and in urgent need of help in the form of social or non-market housing.
“The amount of housing that it’s going to take through straight-up supply to arrive at affordability, it’s more than the system can actually produce,” he said.
Among the three leaders, Yan said it was Furstenau who had focused on the role of the “financialization” of housing, or large investors using housing for profit.
“It really squeezes renters,” he said of the trend. “It captures those units that would ordinarily become affordable and moves (them) into an investment product.”
The Greens’ platform includes a pledge to advocate for federal legislation banning the sale of residential units toreal estate investment trusts, known as REITs.
The party has also proposed a two per cent tax on homes valued at $3 million or higher, while committing $1.5 billion to build 26,000 non-market units each year.
Eby’s NDP government has enacted a suite of policies aimed at speeding up the development and availability of middle-income housing and affordable rentals.
They include the Rental Protection Fund, which Jones described as a “cutting-edge” policy. The $500-million fund enables non-profit organizations to purchase and manage existing rental buildings with the goal of preserving their affordability.
Another flagship NDP housing initiative, dubbed BC Builds, uses $2 billion in government financingto offer low-interest loans for the development of rental buildings on low-cost, underutilized land. Under the program, operators must offer at least 20 per cent of their units at 20 per cent below the market value.
Ravi Kahlon, the NDP candidate for Delta North who serves as Eby’s housing minister,said BC Builds was designed to navigate “huge headwinds” in housing development, including high interest rates, global inflation and the cost of land.
Boosting supply is one piece of the larger housing puzzle, Kahlon said in an interview before the start of the election campaign.
“We also need governments to invest and … come up with innovative programs to be able to get more affordability than the market can deliver,” he said.
The NDP is also pledging to help more middle-class, first-time buyers into the housing market with a plan to finance 40 per cent of the price on certain projects, with the money repayable as a loan and carrying an interest rate of 1.5 per cent. The government’s contribution would have to be repaid upon resale, plus 40 per cent of any increase in value.
The Canadian Press reached out several times requesting a housing-focused interview with Rustad or another Conservative representative, but received no followup.
At a press conference officially launching the Conservatives’ campaign, Rustad said Eby “seems to think that (housing) is government’s job.”
A key element of the Conservatives’ housing plans is a provincial tax exemption dubbed the “Rustad Rebate.” It would start in 2026 with residents able to deduct up to $1,500 per month for rent and mortgage costs, increasing to $3,000 in 2029.
Rustad also wants Ottawa to reintroduce a 1970s federal program that offered tax incentives to spur multi-unit residential building construction.
“It’s critical to bring that back and get the rental stock that we need built,” Rustad said of the so-called MURB program during the recent televised leaders’ debate.
Rustad also wants to axe B.C.’s speculation and vacancy tax, which Eby says has added 20,000 units to the long-term rental market, and repeal rules restricting short-term rentals on platforms such as Airbnb and Vrbo to an operator’s principal residence or one secondary suite.
“(First) of all it was foreigners, and then it was speculators, and then it was vacant properties, and then it was Airbnbs, instead of pointing at the real problem, which is government, and government is getting in the way,” Rustad said during the televised leaders’ debate.
Rustad has also promised to speed up approvals for rezoning and development applications, and to step in if a city fails to meet the six-month target.
Eby’s approach to clearing zoning and regulatory hurdles includes legislation passed last fall that requires municipalities with more than 5,000 residents to allow small-scale, multi-unit housing on lots previously zoned for single family homes.
The New Democrats have also recently announced a series of free, standardized building designs and a plan to fast-track prefabricated homes in the province.
A statement from B.C.’s Housing Ministry said more than 90 per cent of 188 local governments had adopted the New Democrats’ small-scale, multi-unit housing legislation as of last month, while 21 had received extensions allowing more time.
Rustad has pledged to repeal that law too, describing Eby’s approach as “authoritarian.”
The Greens are meanwhile pledging to spend $650 million in annual infrastructure funding for communities, increase subsidies for elderly renters, and bring in vacancy control measures to prevent landlords from drastically raising rents for new tenants.
Yan likened the Oct. 19 election to a “referendum about the course that David Eby has set” for housing, with Rustad “offering a completely different direction.”
Regardless of which party and leader emerges victorious, Yan said B.C.’s next government will be working against the clock, as well as cost pressures.
Yan said failing to deliver affordable homes for everyone, particularly people living on B.C. streets and young, working families, came at a cost to the whole province.
“It diminishes us as a society, but then also as an economy.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.
In The Rings: Curling Canada still looking for Canadian Curling Trials title sponsor
After hurricane, with no running water, residents organize to meet a basic need
N.B. election debate: Tory leader forced to defend record on gender policy, housing
Alberta government shifts continuing care from Health to Seniors Ministry
Buhai, Green and Shin lead in South Korea after 8-under 64s in first round
Manitoba government halts school building plan, says other methods will be found
‘Significant overreach’: Ontario municipalities slam province over bike lane rules
Maple Leafs winger Bobby McMann finding game after opening-night scratch