Ideas on how to make homes affordable

The current trend here in Vancouver is to build duplexes with sub basements or with attached tiny homes that can be rented out.
The cost is still 1.6 million dollars, but the buyer at least has a way to make some extra income from it. Still it's a big struggle to pay 5k/month mortgage when you are only making 4k in wages.
The rich get richer, the working stiffs struggle harder and harder. A lot of kids aren't even going to try it, they will just live on the street, or in a car, or OD and die. It's pretty sad.

Why don't we, as a Country (Canada), just decide that ALL properties be devalued by 80%. So if your house was worth 1 million dollars, now it's worth 200k.

This would apply to ALL properties, no exceptions, and it would apply immediately so there is no chance for debate or changes or protests. Since it would hit EVERYONE evenly, it should all work out just fine.
Would need to put restrictions on out of country purchases, and maybe set a limit so nobody can own more than 3 properties.
Government would hate to lose all that tax income but they can suck goats.

It would help relieve homelessness, it would bring wages back in line with the cost of home ownership too.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

BlueVeins · 26-30

This wouldn't work because Canada isn't a command economy. The government can wake up tomorrow and say that a house is work $200,000, but if there are people out there willing to buy it for $1,200,000, the seller will sell it to those people and not sell to someone bidding $200K.

There are 3 basic ways to reduce the cost of housing that can be employed separately or in tandem:

1) Loosen government-imposed limitations and regulations on housing construction so as to allow developers to build more housing stock.
2) Instate rent controls for old housing units. This way you save renters money without diminishing the incentive to build more housing.
3) Have the government buy up some land, build some housing themselves, and rent it out for cheap.

For Vancouver, option 1 is probably going to give you the most bang for your buck. There's a shit ton of space in that city to build way more supply.

MisterBander ·

@BlueVeins They have been trying the "build more" idea for years. What they end up with is a new house that is worth 1.6 million dollars. There is no incentive there for new buyers at all.
If they changed the rules so they built tiny homes everywhere instead. Make it so you can buy a home for 200k, even if you share that same property with 5 others, that would help, but there are no plans for that.

The rent control thing no longer works because people have paid 1.6 million for their homes and they need to charge 1500/month rent just to make their mortgage payment. You can't suddenly take away half of that or they would default.

Back in the day, the government used to build "Vancouver Specials", you see these all over the city still. They are small homes, not tiny houses, but small, on small lots, and they sold for cheap. Those same old houses now sell for over 2 million dollars, but it isn't the house you are buying, it is the land.

BlueVeins · 26-30

@MisterBander

The rent control thing no longer works because people have paid 1.6 million for their homes and they need to charge 1500/month rent just to make their mortgage payment. You can't suddenly take away half of that or they would default.

If you decrease the cost of housing, the people who own that housing will lose money, no matter how you go about it. Duh. Housing is a human need, not just an investment.

This kind of logic is why cities like Vancouver don't loosen regulation nearly enough despite recognizing to their voters that there's a problem. A lot of people out there have a vested interest in housing being expensive, and they sure as shit show up to the ballot box.