Kitchener breaks ground on $144 million rec complex - "Shovels went into the ground Friday at RBJ Schlegel Park for Kitchener’s new multi purpose indoor recreation facility. The facility is boasted as being designed as one of the most sustainable recreation facilities in Canada. When completed, it will be Kitchener’s first net-zero carbon building... The federal government invested $9.7 million into the project while Ontario put in over $8 million. The remaining $126.2 million was funded through development charges collected by the city."
Clearly, developer fees on new housing are needed to build critical infrastructure
"Sustainable" projects are not sustainable without massive subsidies
Matt Spoke: The Trudeau government is asking first-time home buyers to shoulder more debt to kickstart Canada’s housing industry - "On the one hand, Canada’s homebuilding industry is experiencing record low levels of new housing starts, and this policy could theoretically kickstart demand for new homes. Because of this, Freeland framed this policy as a “supply-side measure.” That said, the underlying problem facing Canada’s housing market is a problem of affordability, which this policy does nothing to address. In fact, by effectively allowing families to take on more debt (backed by government guarantees), the new policy is a highly-costly way to finance the launch of new housing construction. This stands in stark contrast to the past position of the Trudeau government which—a few short years ago, with federal deficits growing at incredible rates—famously argued that it was running deficits to save Canadians from taking on personal debt."
Gone baby gone: Toronto is losing its young kids - The Globe and Mail - "Over the 12 months to July 1 of last year, the Toronto area saw a net loss of around 14,600 kids (14 and under) on an intraprovincial basis. Put differently, 14,600 more kids left Toronto for other parts of Ontario than moved in. Outflows from urban areas are common in Canada – think couples starting families and moving to the suburbs – but the exodus has become especially large in Toronto in the past few years. Similarly, Toronto is not unique in seeing a shrinking population of its youngest residents; the same trend is found in Montreal, Vancouver and elsewhere. On the flip side, some parts of Southern Ontario have experienced a recent influx of kids. Since 2019, the population of babies and toddlers has risen by 10.9 per cent in the Oshawa area, 8.3 per cent in Brantford and 7.9 per cent in the Niagara region."
'This a bright red warning light': Toronto's housing crisis to get worse as development applications drop off, BILD says : r/toronto - "An oversupply, bild is just a developer shill of course they want to build more."
"The rental vacancy rate in Toronto is 1.4%, which is very low. I don't think Toronto has too much housing."
'This a bright red warning light': Toronto's housing crisis to get worse as development applications drop off, BILD says : r/toronto - "It's almost like there is a conspiracy to keep prices high among the private sector. It's almost like the actual solution is for government to step in, and appropriate land and build the housing we need to alleviate the problem."
"It's extremely common for developers to be forced to shrink down projects (i.e., build less housing than they see demand for) due to opposition from neighbours and council. We could start by not forcing that."
'This a bright red warning light': Toronto's housing crisis to get worse as development applications drop off, BILD says : r/toronto - "By far the biggest increase in builder's costs over the last decade is municipal development fees. Average fee for a condo unit is over 120k in the GTA. The real conspiracy is keeping property taxes artificially low by jacking up development fees."
'This a bright red warning light': Toronto's housing crisis to get worse as development applications drop off, BILD says : r/toronto - "You can't "pass on the savings" with a good that is market priced. A $700k house with development fees will still sell for $700k without development fees. You'd have to be a fool to believe anything property developers say."
"Why not raise development fees then? What about development fees of $500,000 per home? An extreme example, yes, but one that shows that development fees obviously impact what kind of housing is feasible to build."
GTA faces widest housing gap in over 50 years - "The Greater Toronto Area‘s (GTA) housing crisis is intensifying, with new data revealing that high municipal fees and prolonged approval processes are driving up the cost of new homes. The latest Municipal Benchmarking Study from the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), developed by Altus Group Economic Consulting, warns that the region’s housing supply is lagging dangerously behind population growth, signalling an impending crisis if immediate action isn’t taken. According to the study, the gap between housing stock and population growth in the GTA is the widest it has been in over 50 years... A key factor contributing to this issue is the length of time it takes for new housing projects to receive municipal approvals. The study found that, on average, it takes 20 months for housing projects to gain approval, adding significant costs to developers and, ultimately, to homebuyers. For each month of delay, an additional $2,673 to $5,576 is added to the cost of each unit. Based on average approval timeframes, this results in an increase of $43,000 to $90,000 per new home. Adding to the burden are high municipal fees, taxes and charges that account for almost 25 per cent of the cost of a new home in the GTA. The study notes that since 2022, municipal fees alone have increased by an average of $42,000 per unit for low-rise developments and $32,000 for high-rise units. As a result, municipal fees now add an average of $122,387 to the cost of a condominium and $164,920 to the cost of a single-family home in the GTA."
There were people claiming that 2 years to wait for approvals was reasonable
GTA faces widest housing gap in over 50 years amid soaring population growth : r/TorontoRealEstate - "I know plenty of people with a downpayment ready - but will never but a one bedroom condo. They are just poor value for money. Everyone I know is looking to move - you really have to love your job to lock yourself into such garbage living conditions."
"I dunno what to tell these folks. They have the opportunity to get into the market and build equity. Yet, they will complain that "prices are too high." Reality is not everyone can't afford or should be buying an SFH as the first home. I find it annoying the same people who complain about high prices are focusing on McMansions and such when they could easily buy something affordable like SFH in suburbs."
Apparently singles shouldn't buy one bedroom condos, and if they can't build equity, it's proof that capitalism has failed
Toronto Protects 225 Buildings Along The Danforth From Development
Might as well declare everything older than 10 years old is "heritage" and you can never build never things
Ontario wanted ‘massive density’ around its transit projects. Then the plan vanished - "Almost 900 pages of internal documents, obtained by Global News through freedom of information laws, show the government had done detailed work on minimum height requirements around subway and light-rail stops."
Of course, people were claiming that this didn't happen because Doug Ford's buddies couldn't get rich. But he also gets bashed for touching the greenbelt (even though there're no NIMBYs or "heritage buildings" there). Why are left wingers so terrified of change?
Pierre Poilievre: Justin Trudeau rewards NIMBY gatekeepers - "Trudeau and his Housing Minister, Sean Fraser, have been touring the country, handing out your money to the local gatekeepers who drive up home prices by blocking homes from being built. In Vancouver, $1.3 million is added to the cost of a home by government gatekeepers, according to CD Howe. That means the number one cost of a new home in Vancouver is not land, labour or lumber. It’s bureaucracy and taxes. What did Justin Trudeau do? He handed the very same gatekeepers a cheque to say, “job well done.” In Winnipeg, the NIMBY municipal government deliberately delayed, according to a court ruling against the city, the approval process for a massive new housing project that would have meant more homes for Canadians. When one planner flat out refused to help with this unethical plot, they were replaced by a gatekeeper who would. Justin Trudeau and Sean Fraser rewarded this behaviour by cutting the local gatekeepers another cheque for $122 million for doing a “good job” of building more homes... We know that Justin Trudeau isn’t afraid of imposing his agenda on Provinces and cities. Earlier this week, radical Liberal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced that the Federal government was going to stop funding roads. They won’t be happy until you live in a million-dollar mud hut and spend all your days stuck in traffic on pothole-ridden roads, or even better, don’t even drive or own a home at all."
Canada's housing affordability crisis may persist for years despite rate cuts - "Calculations based on average house prices from the Canadian Real Estate Association show that monthly interest payments on a five-year fixed rate mortgage are still 40% higher than in January 2020, even after a drop in mortgage costs from last year's highs. During the same period, real or inflation-adjusted household income has risen by 2.3%, while nominal income has increased by 21%, according to estimates from Statistics Canada. For affordability to return to pre-pandemic levels, house prices would need to come down by at least 10% and mortgage interest costs would have to drop by half from current levels. Home sales in Toronto - often considered the bellwether of the Canadian real estate market - are at about 20-year lows due to sky-high prices, said John Pasalis, president of Realosophy Realty, a Toronto-based real estate brokerage... the government changed one of its rules on mortgage payments, allowing first-time buyers or people purchasing a newly-built home to take loans with 30-year amortizations, instead of 25 years. Although the move is intended to lower monthly payments and make home ownership affordable to more people, critics say it may have opposite effect by boosting demand and raising prices."
Rents could exceed $7.5K in Vancouver, $5.6K in Toronto without massive spike in building: Study - "“I think there is no government who could take this burden on its own,” Yönder said. “So you really need the capital markets” in the form of REITs, developers and investors, he says. Vacancy rates are currently so low that “the traditional relationship between economic factors is disrupted,” the Concordia study says, with demand so high that rents are likely to keep rising even when more supply is initially added. The model shows rents starting to drop only when annual completions reach about 11 to 12 per cent of existing housing stock in a given area. The report notes that annual completions in the Toronto area were 1.1 per cent in 2023... “Our findings highlight the importance of developing location-based policies and the urgency of easing supply restrictions. It is increasingly clear that achieving a healthy supply/demand relationship will depend heavily on the private real estate sector, more specifically those capable of large-scale development.”"
Canada’s rent growth slows as international student enrolment drops
Weird how landlords become less "greedy" when there're fewer international students. It's almost as if prices are set by supply and demand, rather than "greed"
Ottawa’s mortgage changes will be a ‘double-edged sword,’ TD economist warns - "For the typical homebuyer, Sondhi estimates the expanded 30-year amortizations will lead to an increase in purchasing power of around nine per cent. Sondhi projects that the pair of moves aimed at loosening mortgage conditions in Canada will help stimulate homebuying in the first half of 2025. He expects that both sales and home prices will be two to four percentage points higher by the end of 2026, were it not for Ottawa’s mortgage changes. But Sondhi told Global News in an interview Thursday that, thanks to rising prices tied to the policy itself, the initial bump in affordability tied to longer amortizations will be “completely eroded” in the next two years. “It’s a bit of a double-edged sword there,” he said. “They do get that near-term boost to activity. But at the same time, affordability is worse than it would have been absent these policies, which then limits the impact.”... Policies that will result in more high loan-to-value mortgages can also add some “fragility” to the Canadian financial system, Sondhi argued in his report. He cites Bank of Canada research that shows higher loan-to-value ratios make homeowners more prone to defaulting on their mortgages... Canada already has a highly indebted society, Sondhi noted, and these polices could see debt levels rise. Measures that encourage more Canadians to take on higher-risk loans could intensify the risks to the financial system if a downturn were to hit the economy and household incomes take a hit, he said."
The taxman is coming for our homes - "Governments’ extraction of value from our homes has accelerated in recent years as they have became more desperate, both to raise revenue and to find scapegoats to deflect blame for their own starring role Canada’s housing shortage. As the byzantine extractions multiplied, our homes, once considered our main assets, have morphed for many into our main liabilities. Once upon a time, “safe as houses” was a no-brainer investment strategy. Anyone who now sees a house as a safe investment needs his head examined."
Taking on more debt is not the solution to the housing crisis despite what the Liberals say - "One of the newest measures the federal Liberal government has taken to increase housing supply is to change the mortgage insurance rules to enable existing homeowners to take on more debt in order to create rental units within existing homes... I will stay in my tax lane and not address the obvious insanity of enticing an already indebted population to take on even more debt, with the carrot being the “incredible advantages” of becoming a landlord. But I will point out the complete disregard for the myriad complicated tax issues that come with such a housing conversion... Confused? You’re not alone. These areas of income and commodity tax confuse even the most seasoned experts, who must carefully look at the resulting consequences of such conversions. I have spent years in my practice explaining to homeowners the tax complications of converting a principal residence. It is not simple. It is irresponsible for governments to release proposals with a lot of fanfare (to create the perception that they are solving a housing crisis ) without any mention of the tax and other complications that will undoubtedly be created. I’m all for government incentives to help create entrepreneurs, but it needs to be done in a responsible manner with consequences fully thought through. In my experience, landowners and developers understand housing issues and concerns better than most. A lot of them tell me that the main reason for the lack of affordable housing is the inability to properly plan for and implement urban boundary expansions. The push to turn homeowners into landlords simply adds to the mountain of government interventions in our housing markets , such as the recent push for intensification within already crowded urban settings, the introduction of bans and taxes on foreign owners and numerous other silly taxation provisions. Given that, is more government intervention the answer? Absolutely not. “Contrary to the vision of the left, it was the free market which produced affordable housing — before government intervention made housing unaffordable,” renowned economist Thomas Sowell has said."
Moody: Another tax on properties won't help Canada's housing woes - "Climate change is an issue? Implement a carbon tax. Foreigners are buying too much Canadian real estate? A speculation tax, a purchase ban and underused housing taxes. Short-term rentals are a community problem and causing housing challenges? A prohibition on the tax deduction of expenditures. Wealth disparity is a problem? Let’s think about a wealth tax or an estate tax. “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it,” former United States president Ronald Reagan once said. That’s a brilliant summary of our current government’s approach. For example, one of the “tax solutions” proposed by the federal government in the 2024 budget was that it would consider introducing a new tax on residentially zoned vacant land... I have acted for many owners of real estate, including land developers, home builders, commercial landlords and others. The key asset for these organizations is land. Once land is acquired, it can take years to develop, rent and/or sell. There are numerous factors — many beyond the owner’s control — that influence quick development, including municipal zoning restrictions, rising costs (such as interest rates that may be applicable on borrowed funds), contamination clean-up requirements, financial downturns in the economy and partner disputes. A proposed vacancy tax wrongly assumes that landowners are simply holding onto their properties until the time is right to maximize their profits. There is no doubt that most landowners wish to get proper returns on their investments, but to think they are simply hanging onto their properties at the expense of people who are lined up at the door to buy their finished product shows a complete misunderstanding of the risks and rewards of entrepreneurship. We shouldn’t be surprised by this kind of simplistic thinking from our current government and its supporters, but I am. If a vacancy tax is implemented, does anyone honestly think land owners would be able to influence all the situations to dispose of or develop their properties to avoid the tax? If so, you should spend even a week or so shadowing an owner of a home-building company. It’s not easy dealing with all the issues involving land development. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there are indeed a large number of greedy landowners holding onto their land. Would the imposition of a vacancy tax move the needle to force them to sell or develop their land? Absolutely not. Instead, the imposition of a vacancy tax could cause significant liquidity problems for many landowners. It may force them to sell their holdings at prices far below their original acquisition costs, thus incurring losses. Those who can afford to pay the tax would simply pass along those additional costs to the ultimate buyers, thus forcing housing prices up. Want some research that shows government interference isn’t helpful? The NDP in British Columbia has introduced many housing initiatives ever since it came to power in 2017, including a speculation tax, housing targets for municipalities, short-term rental rules, historic zoning changes and a home-flipping tax (designed along the lines of the ridiculous federal flipping tax). Have those measures helped? “Despite countless measures and additional paperwork and other requirements, we’re exactly where we started,” Andrey Pavlov, professor of finance at Simon Fraser University’s Beedie School of Business, said in a recent interview that discusses some of his research on the matter... Additional taxes are rarely the answer. Instead, governments should look in the mirror to see if any of their policies are contributing to an issue. For example, government immigration policy contributes greatly to housing challenges."
Clearly, we need even more regulation
Single family homes still reign supreme - "64 per cent said they prefer a single family home with 38 per cent preferring to live in the suburbs and 34 per cent preferring urban areas. More than half (64%) are looking for homes that are already updated with modern features and finishes – an indication that household budgets are tight, he said... “There were a lot of people who thought they could just park themselves at a farm or lake house during COVID and never see people again, but the reality is economic opportunities are in the city,” he said. What stands out most from the Ontario portion of the survey, he added, is the disconnect between the reported ‘dream home’ and the majority of the product currently being built by developers in the GTA and surrounding areas, which is heavily geared towards condos and townhomes. Home builders have to respond to what people can afford and that means even though buyers aspire to own a three-bedroom, renovated, single family detached home, most are forced to start with something else. “Perhaps people’s first home isn’t the dream. It’s a ladder into the housing industry,” said Katchen. “Given the affordability restraints we’ve had … that dream may not come alive for some people until a little bit later in their career or when their kids are older.” Atlantic Canada was the only region surveyed where the majority of respondents reported a desire to live in a rural setting (58%). One reason could be that one in two Atlantic Canadians already live in rural areas, according to a recent Government of Canada statistic. Not surprisingly, the preference to own a single family home was highest in Saskatchewan/Manitoba (82%), Atlantic Canada (77%) and Alberta (72%) where home prices remain affordable."
BoC official warns against playing with mortgage rules to make housing affordable - "The central bank official says improving housing affordability ultimately requires reaching a balance between supply and demand, which she says will take time."
Surrey council rejects townhouse project for tony Fleetwood neighbourhood - "Council heard that 95 per cent of the neighbourhood – some 484 residents – signed a petition against the proposal. Residents complained it would increase traffic, density, noise, overburden local schools and parks, drive down land values, be an eyesore, bring “criminal activity” and transiency and otherwise wreck their quality of life. “It will destroy the character of our neighbourhood,” Gary Dhadda said. “Our neighbourhood consists of 10,000 square feet to 22,000 square feet half-acre lots with large luxury homes so putting 58 townhomes right in the middle of these houses is not appropriate. Our neighbourhood is quiet, peaceful, lush green and safe. “This development will cause great harm to the quality of life we enjoy in this neighbourhood,” he told council. “We need single-family quarter-acre lots that flow with the overall layout of the neighbourhood and complement this existing, well-established character. We don’t need townhomes.” Resident Barb Kinsella said the proposed townhouses “do not fit in the culture of our area.” She noted that a horse farm occupied the area before the existing houses were built and “it was a lovely area before our houses came in.” “Nobody wants to look out their back window and see a group of townhomes staring back at them,” she said. Still many speakers also spoke in favour of the project, pointing out that single-family homes are financially beyond reach for many Surrey families, that council must be alive to the affordable housing crisis and that these dwellings will make home ownership possible for people otherwise priced out of the market. “Maybe my son can afford one some day,” Magic Dhaliwal told council... Arman Rai didn’t care for the tone of some speakers’ remarks. “Hearing a lot of the concerns today regarding the safety, demographic and characteristic of the neighbourhood, it almost seems like a federal prison is getting built in the middle of the neighbourhood,” he told council."
Damn greedy companies and landlords keeping housing expensive! Of course, there're no costs to a developer of a housing project not being approved, but they will just use that as an excuse to jack prices up
Here is the income bracket you have to be in to afford a home in Toronto right now : r/TorontoRealEstate - "In October 2024, the average home price in Toronto decreased slightly from $1,068,700 in September to $1,060,200, a drop of $8,500. Correspondingly, the income required to purchase a home in Toronto also decreased from $199,800 to $195,420, reflecting a $4,380 reduction. In Vancouver, the average home price fell from $1,179,700 to $1,172,000, a decrease of $7,700. The income required to buy a home in Vancouver also dropped, from $219,000 in September to $214,460 in October, representing a reduction of $4,540."
"But our income tax brackets tax someone making $200k like they are the next Jeff bezos. You know shit is broken when someone on the highest tax bracket cannot afford an average home. Our income taxes are out of touch with reality."
Dr. Mike P. Moffatt 🇨🇦🏅🏅 on X - "Thought it would be interesting to see how Toronto development charges sync up on a line-item basis. The Long Term Care item is interesting. Apparently if you build more homes, your population ages faster. Because: Science!"
Rents are up 70% in the past decade. The federal government spends billions, but it isn’t helping : r/canadahousing - "No you don't understand, new developments need to pay for "growth" such as new parks, roads, a Spadina extension, transit "balance", child care, maintaining the library, police funding, firefigher funding (note it's not called fire safety inspection fees). Also new residents are the ones who need to be paying for subsidized housing of other residents! [SARCASM]"
Globe editorial: The true cost of soaring development charges on new homes - The Globe and Mail - "In the city of Kitchener in Southwestern Ontario, buyers of new homes are the only locals who must pay directly to build a swish athletic facility that will be open to everyone. Anyone building a semi-detached house in Toronto must pay a development charge that has risen nearly 400 per cent in a decade – and includes more than $4,000 for a subway extension that opened seven years ago. These are just two examples of how development charges, which started off as a defensible policy, have morphed into one that penalizes new buyers and stands in the way of building homes as quickly and cheaply as possible... The athletic facility in Kitchener is a case in point. The total cost is $144-million, with $126-million coming from development charges and the rest covered by federal and provincial grants. A press release about the groundbreaking proudly stated that “there will be no impact on municipal taxes.” Why should that be? The city even acknowledges that its existing athletic facilities are oversubscribed. Current residents will benefit from the new recreation centre and should help pay for it... In Ontario, housing starts in the third quarter were down 17 per cent from the same period last year, according to the Financial Accountability Office. The pace of home construction is far less than needed to reach the province’s goal of 1.5 million homes by 2031. Reducing excessive development charges would spur construction that is desperately needed to close Canada’s housing deficit. And it would also eliminate a fundamental unfairness. People buying into the market – who are often young and only starting to build wealth – should not be subsidizing the property taxes of established residents."