5 ms·

> As a local, I'd vote that foreigners shouldn't be allowed to buy property here at all Define "local" and "foreigner". Does local mean you grew up in vancouve

> As a local, I'd vote that foreigners shouldn't be allowed to buy property here at all Define "local" and "foreigner". Does local mean you grew up in vancouver, or moved there a while ago, or your family spent three generations there already? In addition, define foreigner. Anywhere else in British Columbia considered "foreign"? What about from Ottowa? If you mean that you want to punish behaviour, such as buying houses and properties you don't live in or use, that's one thing. Discrimination based on locality sounds an awful lot like Jim Crow laws.

true_religion 10y ago
I think he means foreigner as in a non-permanent resident. It isn't unheard of. In SE Asia (the Phillipines for example), all properties must have 50%+ occupancy by permanent residents.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > In SE Asia (the Phillipines for example), all properties must have 50%+ occupancy by permanent residents. I think that's an overly wide generalization. For instance, in Thailand, I don't think you're allowed to own land or houses, just a condo. In Laos, you can't own land at all. The situation is much the same in much of Latin America.
  - toyg 10y ago
    Not exactly rich countries. Let's face it, capital coming into the country to buy property is a Good Thing from an economic perspective. You "just" have to make sure this capital rewards low-income people as much as property owners. This tax is one way to do that, which I think is very good.
- cm2187 10y ago
  Switzerland also has strict restrictions on foreigners and non residents buying properties.
ianai 10y ago
I think asking someone to live in a home they own 6 months a year in the same city as their property(ies) satisfies 'fairness'. It's important to allow people to live their lives, but over speculation hurts many people to a much larger extent.
Kluny 10y ago
Local (in my case) means born in Vancouver and raised in bc. Foreigner means not a Canadian citizen. I don't think anyone who isn't a Canadian citizen should be allowed to buy Canadian property.
- serge2k 10y ago
  Permanent residents should be allowed to purchase. Visa holders should be at least allowed to purchase a primary home to live in. Forcing them to sell if they move might be a good plan, I don't know.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  You still have not given reasons why you think that people who aren't Canadian citizens should be allowed to buy Canadian property, or that the fact that you're a "local" by some definition of the word gives you some sort of special insight or moral authority on the matter.
jcoffland 10y ago
You had me right up to Jim Crow laws. That is a bit hyperbolic and an inappropriate comparison, IMO.
- serge2k 10y ago
  Especially for a conversation about Canada. Although frankly the post lost me at "define local and foreigner". Sure, you can quibble about whether foreigners should include permanent residents. The meaning is still obvious from context, and very obvious to anyone familiar with Vancouver.
- wattt 10y ago
  Likewise
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  "Foreign real estate investor" in Vancouver is a thinly veiled euphemism for "Chinese and Russian money." When you're passing a law that disproportionately affects certain ethnic groups, that particular comparison is apt.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Most of the Russian and Chinese money is being laundered out of their respective countries. Your ethnicity isn't being discrimated against, just your country's economics circumstances. No reason to bring the SJWing into an economic argument.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      >Your ethnicity isn't being discrimated against, just your country's economics circumstances. Restricting people, no matter their ethnicities, based on their country's circumstances is generally frowned upon. Especially when it only affects citizens of a few countries. "Well, this law only applies to <action> Too bad only people from these countries perform these <actions>" Besides, your claim that the money is being laundered is highly speculative and unproven. That's the definition of painting with a wide brush - because most money is suspect, you cut off access to all of it?
wattt 10y ago
Canada didn't have Jim Crow laws, wrong country.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  http://startouch.thestar.com/screens/003e50ae-8fe5-4e1f-be7e-03c88df86f84%7C_0.html http://startouch.thestar.com/screens/003e50ae-8fe5-4e1f-be7e... Your simplistic views of history do not explain reality. Just because they weren't called Jim Crow laws doesn't mean that similar laws didn't exist.
  - wattt 10y ago
    I didn't say similar things didn't exist in Canada, I said "Jim Crow" didn't exist in Canada because that was the subject of the comment I was replying to. Thanks for the scolding though.

true_religion 10y ago

I think he means foreigner as in a non-permanent resident. It isn't unheard of. In SE Asia (the Phillipines for example), all properties must have 50%+ occupancy by permanent residents.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> In SE Asia (the Phillipines for example), all properties must have 50%+ occupancy by permanent residents. I think that's an overly wide generalization. For instance, in Thailand, I don't think you're allowed to own land or houses, just a condo. In Laos, you can't own land at all. The situation is much the same in much of Latin America.
- toyg 10y ago
  Not exactly rich countries. Let's face it, capital coming into the country to buy property is a Good Thing from an economic perspective. You "just" have to make sure this capital rewards low-income people as much as property owners. This tax is one way to do that, which I think is very good.
cm2187 10y ago
Switzerland also has strict restrictions on foreigners and non residents buying properties.

ianai 10y ago

I think asking someone to live in a home they own 6 months a year in the same city as their property(ies) satisfies 'fairness'. It's important to allow people to live their lives, but over speculation hurts many people to a much larger extent.

Kluny 10y ago

Local (in my case) means born in Vancouver and raised in bc. Foreigner means not a Canadian citizen. I don't think anyone who isn't a Canadian citizen should be allowed to buy Canadian property.

serge2k 10y ago
Permanent residents should be allowed to purchase. Visa holders should be at least allowed to purchase a primary home to live in. Forcing them to sell if they move might be a good plan, I don't know.
jimmywanger 10y ago
You still have not given reasons why you think that people who aren't Canadian citizens should be allowed to buy Canadian property, or that the fact that you're a "local" by some definition of the word gives you some sort of special insight or moral authority on the matter.

jcoffland 10y ago

You had me right up to Jim Crow laws. That is a bit hyperbolic and an inappropriate comparison, IMO.

serge2k 10y ago
Especially for a conversation about Canada. Although frankly the post lost me at "define local and foreigner". Sure, you can quibble about whether foreigners should include permanent residents. The meaning is still obvious from context, and very obvious to anyone familiar with Vancouver.
wattt 10y ago
Likewise
jimmywanger 10y ago
"Foreign real estate investor" in Vancouver is a thinly veiled euphemism for "Chinese and Russian money." When you're passing a law that disproportionately affects certain ethnic groups, that particular comparison is apt.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Most of the Russian and Chinese money is being laundered out of their respective countries. Your ethnicity isn't being discrimated against, just your country's economics circumstances. No reason to bring the SJWing into an economic argument.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    >Your ethnicity isn't being discrimated against, just your country's economics circumstances. Restricting people, no matter their ethnicities, based on their country's circumstances is generally frowned upon. Especially when it only affects citizens of a few countries. "Well, this law only applies to <action> Too bad only people from these countries perform these <actions>" Besides, your claim that the money is being laundered is highly speculative and unproven. That's the definition of painting with a wide brush - because most money is suspect, you cut off access to all of it?

wattt 10y ago

Canada didn't have Jim Crow laws, wrong country.

jimmywanger 10y ago
http://startouch.thestar.com/screens/003e50ae-8fe5-4e1f-be7e-03c88df86f84%7C_0.html http://startouch.thestar.com/screens/003e50ae-8fe5-4e1f-be7e... Your simplistic views of history do not explain reality. Just because they weren't called Jim Crow laws doesn't mean that similar laws didn't exist.
- wattt 10y ago
  I didn't say similar things didn't exist in Canada, I said "Jim Crow" didn't exist in Canada because that was the subject of the comment I was replying to. Thanks for the scolding though.