51 ms·

Canada bans foreign home buyers for two years

• mytailorisrich 5y ago
  According to the government's announcement linked to in the article, the actual proposal is subtly but importantly different: "imposing a two-year ban on foreign capital coming into Canada to buy residential real estate".
  • aww_dang 5y ago
    There are countries which prohibit foreign ownership of real estate. However capital controls typically prevent money from leaving, rather than entering. It will be interesting to see how this trend plays out.
    • hkt 5y ago
      Interesting indeed - to have gone from a capital starved era that led to the fetishisation of direct foreign investment to an era where there's so much capital seeking returns that it gets turned away. A strange inversion if ever there was one.
      • aww_dang 5y ago
        It fits with the theme of declining globalization and increasing protectionism. Still it seems strange for an allegedly free and open capitalist nation to turn away capital. I suppose the political alternative would be questioning why the real estate market was managed in such a way to restrict supply, or disincentivize renting some of these foreign owned properties. Always easier politically to point and blame the external actors, the other tribe. If this latest measure proves ineffective and taking responsibility for domestic mismanagement is off the table, what comes next? Nationalization or a bail-in of foreign held properties seems extreme, but how far can this go?
  • barbegal 5y ago
    But presumably foreigners can put their capital into a Canadian corporation that they own which then buys the real estate.
  • FartyMcFarter 5y ago
    Yeah - there's a line in the article about an exception for "permanent residents", which makes sense. I don't see how one could defend not allowing workers living in Canada to buy a house.
• Workaccount2 5y ago
  Building more housing is the only "pure" way out of this. Fuck nimbys, the government needs to just step in an do it.
  • boredumb 5y ago
    Ironically it's the government stepping in with regulation and zoning that is preventing people from building more housing (that low and middle income people can feasibly afford). The cost of building a new home on an empty piece of land can be astronomical and so builders would rather get the massive sums of initial capital from outside investors, build a luxury building for high income earners and cash out instead of using their own funds to build more modest homes for modest returns. The cost of bringing in utilities/licensing to a luxury condo with dozens of units isn't O(N) to the cost of a single family homes utility/licensing so the economic incentive is to build high end buildings that don't do much in the way of bringing down prices.
    • bombcar 5y ago
      How it used to work is that the new houses would go to the richer people with money, and the older houses would end up cheaper (because why would you buy an older house for the same price as a new one). Once supply dries up or the influx of new people is greater than new supply, the people priced out of the market are at the bottom. It's similar to how you can't build used cars - the used car market is dependent on the new car market.
• kjsingh 5y ago
  No one talks about the fact that we focus development on the core cities only. Between Calgary and Edmonton there is Red Deer and small towns. No one city half the size of YEG.
• grammers 5y ago
  Good. Yet, prices also accelerate because of ever increasing regulations. Maybe that's a good thing, but we have to make sure that housing is also affordable for everyone. After all it's a basic necessity.
• motohagiography 5y ago
  Canada's housing market is a destination for capital flight from other countries. Imo, the market is completely financialized and not producing actual homes. That money is also made in countries without the same levels of taxation Canada has, and that puts citizens at a huge disadvantage in their own market. Why should a 21yr old from North Bay or Timmins in Ontario have to compete for bidding on a house with the someone in the top 10% of earners in Hong Kong, Delhi, or Tehran - let alone their REITs? I'm a huge believer in positive sum economics, where people can be trusted and bet on to find a way and create new businesses and value, but that only works when there is a diversity of markets based on geography and not a single zero sum managed global one. Whether one calls this "nationalism," or just a government being responsible for the people who elected it, the dynamic is clear. Canada's economy has been hollowed out by two decades of globalization, whereby all that "empty space" is not economical to inhabit because we can import everything people could produce in that new town at higher volumes and cheaper from asia. There is nothing "local," to be produced or manufactured for export that would facilitate growth, and therefore no incentive to build new housing to serve that local market. Precisely due to Canada's theory driven agricultural supply management laws against entrepreneurship and smallholders, there are no local markets either. Even though I don't trust this govt to implement the rule in an effective way, it's the bare minimum necessary to mitigate a crisis. If millenials and gen Z and beyond do not have homes, they aren't going to have kids (after losing 2+ years on that path to covid), and the govt is using this policy to try and mitigate an imminent disruptive population bust. Boomers are coming to terms with the fact that generally, they aren't getting grandchildren (unless you count "fur babies"), and now Gen X is about to experience the same. As a signal that your society is damaged, consider that the only time any creatures on earth cease to have kids is during war or famine, or in captivity. The greater issue of the culture being broken and physically dying off isn't going to be stopped by banning foreign ownership, and unfortunately it may keep the people responsible for these policies in power even longer to do even more harm, but it's a sign they apprehend the disaster they have caused, imo.
• iefbr14 5y ago
  So why don't they build more homes?
  • eru 5y ago
    Or why don't they just tax the owning of real estate? No need to ban those 'evil' foreigners, just tax them so they can pay for what the locals want.
    • bawolff 5y ago
      BC actually did this (tax empty homes). Did not affect prices. I suspect the real problem is low supply high demand + domestic speculation, which is why none of the blame the foreigner solutions work
      • asvitkine 5y ago
        Increase the taxes until there is an effect?
        • bombcar 5y ago
          A tax on empty homes that started increasing after some grace period (say 3-12 months or whatever) would be amusing because at some point the vacancy owners would start paying people to live in the house so as to avoid the tax. And if prices were going up enough, it'd be worth it.
  • mactavish88 5y ago
    They can’t build them fast enough.
  • cpcallen 5y ago
    Not enough land. ;-)
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
• OJFord 5y ago
  Source article (without full-page subscription modal which disables scroll until interacted with): https://apnews.com/article/business-chrystia-freeland-justin-trudeau-ontario-canada-999eedee72d9fd63e73576efd2bb3535 https://apnews.com/article/business-chrystia-freeland-justin...
• j7ake 5y ago
  I would have thought that the pandemic and travel restrictions would have effectively “banned foreigners from buying homes” for 2 years. If home prices haven’t fallen during pandemic, then the reason why prices are high is not because of foreigners. The government is trying to point to a scapegoat rather than trying to get to the root cause.
  • actually_a_dog 5y ago
    This is primarily about foreign investors who are buying sight unseen, then leaving the homes vacant. Note the exception for permanent residences.
  • OJFord 5y ago
    It's foreign investors they're concerned about, not second home holiday-makers and immigrants.
  • jowsie 5y ago
    From what I've read before, the issue isn't foreigners buying the homes to live in, it's foreigners using it as a way to move cash out of their own country to hedge against devaluation/government blocks. A lot of the houses don't even end up being rented out, they just sit vacant.
    • sandworm101 5y ago
      This. Too many canadian homes are sitting empty. Those who dont live in the country are less likely to actually live in the homes they buy. It is a hamfisted approach but at least they are trying something direct to address the vacancy issue, something other than moving money around.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Not at all, you can buy property remotely and you can in vest in clmpanies which buy properties on your behalf. Trouble is that restricting foreign buyers is meaningless unless you also reign in corporate 'investment', as endless shell conpanies obscure the end benefactor What you have to do is reign in buying houses as an investment by people who have no intention of ever living in them.
• msh 5y ago
  I wonder if the simpler solution would not be to require residence, for homes in popular locations.
  • eru 5y ago
    In economics, in general it's usually better to tax than to ban. In this case, you could just tax foreigners for owning property. Or you could tax non-residents for owning property. A land value tax would be a good idea in general. But if it's politically necessary to restrict that to people from far away, that's still better than a ban.
    • zarzavat 5y ago
      The people who buy these properties are often looking to put their money somewhere safe from government seizure (i.e. 100% tax). A tax is not going to be much of a deterrent unless it is really very big.
      • asvitkine 5y ago
        Funds from the tax could be used to incentivize new construction.
      • eru 5y ago
        As the sibling comment said: that's a good problem to have. Taxes give you a behaviour change and revenue. If the behaviour doesn't change, you can jack them up to get more revenue.
  • yeetsfromhellL2 5y ago
    It can be difficult to disprove residency, especially if you can say you travel a lot for your work. I've uh...heard of people that are residents of Nevada for tax purposes. They have a tiny furnished apartment and their car is registered there, and they're registered to vote there, but let's say they aren't home very often.
    • 5y ago
• taspeotis 5y ago
  Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30945444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30945444
• eru 5y ago
  This is really, really stupid. It reeks of economic illiteracy. If you think foreign investor cause harm, just estimate how much harm it is, and tax them accordingly. Why would you ban them? Taxing is almost always more economically efficient than banning. You can even pay out (part of) the tax take to the people you think are harmed. (In general, a land value tax for everyone would be a good idea. But if political reasons dictate that only foreigners should be taxed, so be it. Still better than a ban.)
  • it_citizen 5y ago
    I am not super familiar with real estate markets. Has the empty house tax helped in any way? Even if it is not the best solution, is there any huge downside to that ban?
    • Dylan16807 5y ago
      Are there any empty house taxes that charge a significant amount of money? 5% would barely get you into the same range as price growth.
      • pastacacioepepe 5y ago
        How do you tax foreign investors only, if they can set up subsidiaries and use dirty tricks anyway? You're gonna penalize the local market as well.
        • Dylan16807 5y ago
          I'm just asking about empty house taxes. Which also doesn't really need to be foreigner-only. Also if a company owns a house then make it pay the maximum penalty rate when it's empty. Subsidiary problem solved.
        • eru 5y ago
          That's why I am suggesting not singling out foreigners in the first place. Use the tax you collect to finance local goods and services (and to reduce other local taxes). So local pay the tax and get something in return. Non-residents pay the same tax, but don't get the local goods and services; just because they aren't there. And all without any complicated rules.
• incomingpain 5y ago
  We have how many foreign investment agreements? Banning foreign investment is not possible at all. The data is public as well, foreign investors aren't the problem. To say you are doing this would not only be punitively not allowed. So you're literally telegraphing that you intend to do nothing. Or for that matter try to make things worse.
  • sumedh 5y ago
    > We have how many foreign investment agreements? Do these agreements say that foreigners have a right to buy houses in Canada?
    • incomingpain 5y ago
      >Do these agreements say that foreigners have a right to buy houses in Canada? For sure. https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cptpp-ptpgp/investing-canada-investir.aspx?lang=eng https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreeme... CPTPP ensures that investors from the Asia-Pacific receive fair and non-discriminatory treatment. This means they must receive the same level of treatment as Canadian investors and any third-country investor in similar situations.
      • sumedh 5y ago
        So Chinese investors can buy houses in Canada but if I am not mistaken Canadians cannot buy property in China. How does that make any sense?
• cik 5y ago
  I love Canada - but our government has always been idiotic. The ban is against 'foreign investors'. But the thing is, Canada has a corporate designation called CCPC: Canadian Controlled Private Corporation. Directors of said corporation have to be > 50% resident Canadians. A corporation can be created for the purchase of this property, with a Canadian controlling, and being the director. This will literally do nothing other than add about $300 to the cost of an existing transaction. Shareholders can pre-execute a sale of shares at the existing value - to be executed later. This is completely legal. Canada would have to reform the various types of corporate entities. That's simply not going to happen.
  • randomdata 5y ago
    Technically the ban isn't on foreign home buyers, the ban is on foreign capital coming into Canada to buy homes. This indirection may make enforcement more difficult, but the intent won't be hard to figure out if one is caught.
  • toss1 5y ago
    If the CCPC has >50% resident Canadians as directors, how does that protect the buyer - what prevents the directors from deciding that the assets are to be used for their benefit instead of the foreign investor(s) funding the corp? Can the CPPC have different voting rights, or the ability to remove directors and undo prior actions? But yes, this does look like a loophole through which one could easily drive a building...
  • dennis_jeeves1 5y ago
    >I love Canada - but our government has always been idiotic. No, the Canadian people are stupid, as are people elsewhere.
• tici_88 5y ago
  Foreigners, especially the billionaire type, can and have been setting up shell corporations through which to purchase Canadian real estate. The proposed measure will do nothing to stop this practice. The measures proposed by the Canadian government are likely just political posturing and indented to "pull the wool over the eyes" of Canadian voters because the housing bubble/crisis has reached epic proportions and everyone is talking about it.
  • dmalik 5y ago
    This is correct. The Beaverton has a good satirical article that gave me a chuckle talking about this. https://www.thebeaverton.com/2022/04/canada-to-ban-foreign-homebuyers-who-refuse-to-set-up-dummy-corporations/ https://www.thebeaverton.com/2022/04/canada-to-ban-foreign-h...
    • deskamess 5y ago
      The Beaverton has been hitting it out of the park recently.
      • GLGirty 5y ago
        Is that because the beaverton writers are getting better, or because the world is getting more ridiculous?
    • throwaway2037 5y ago
      Cripes. This is crazy good. I read for about 30 mins. This feels like The Onion from 10 years ago! Example headline: <<Gay teen moves to Toronto, must once again live in closet>> Perfect fit with this discussion!
  • bryanlarsen 5y ago
    We don't have implementation of the bill yet, just the budget line. Obviously the government knows about this problem, so if they take measures to prevent it, then we'll know they are actually serious. Note that a corporation is not consequence free. An owner occupied home pays no tax on capital gains. A corporation owned one is double taxed.
• unglaublich 5y ago
  The core problem is that our money inflates like crazy and we're all looking for something tangible to put it in before the bubble bursts.
  • sumedh 5y ago
    That is one part of the problem, the second problem is that foreigners know that once you buy the property the govt is not going to seize it, so if you want to hide your money from the foreign govt, it makes sense to park it in Canada.
• jnmandal 5y ago
  Having your housing stock bought up as holdings by nonresidents is not great. It hollows out the communities by having choice housing sit empty and it raises the cost of living for everyone who is actually there. I'm interested to see how this plays out. It seems pretty heavy handed. Zoning denser housing or placing limited restrictions on square footage may proved smarter in the long term. That said, two years is pretty short term in this context.
  • BlargMcLarg 5y ago
    Prediction: barely anything happens and problems continue to rise as population numbers have yet to peak and the people who are struggling most with this problem, the working class, continues to lose wealth relatively to the upper classes. Almost every country with these problems has similar symptoms and the problem could've been seen coming from decades away. Tackling these things requires far, far more input from governing bodies. Input they aren't willing to give.
    • beaconstudios 5y ago
      I can see a resurgence of social democracy coming soon as the problems with things like real estate investment and unrestricted emissions come home to roost. We've already seen a little bit of that with Bernie Sanders.
      • BlargMcLarg 5y ago
        I can't speak for the US, but here in NL, I don't see things changing very soon for various reasons. Very few voters actually care to solve the issue. Home owners still far outweigh those who don't. Quite a few of the older generation bank on their property/properties to carry them through retirement. No one wants to see their house go under, even if they can realistically endure it without severe consequences. There's no incentive to increase interest rates, but banks obviously don't want to carry more risks, so individuals aren't getting the same mortgage-to-house price ratio as before. "Figure it out" mentality. Even if there is a national or even global trend, responsibility to solve the issue is pushed onto the individual. Or worse, global mentality shifts to accept what is going on. "Yeah buying was normal back in the day, now you rent. Get over it." Grandfathering and "empathy for the fortunate". Yes, I get it, you don't want your lucky uncle who worked a bad job for decades to lose his retirement. You don't want Mr. John in his McMansion on the other side of the road to lose his fortune. Almost no one wants to be the bad guy. Yet special ruling to keep the "haves" in their position continue to be placed at cost of the "have nots". No one wants to hurt anyone. As a result, the solution often seem to be continuing the same fruitless endeavor which changes nothing for the "have nots". As mentioned before, population has yet to peak. Governments are still incentivizing people to come in or reproduce above replacement rate, despite it becoming evident we're just not capable of handling them. In theory we can handle way higher populations. In practice, there's no incentive to do so without severely punishing the working class further. We're slowly normalizing a cyberpunk dystopia and most people seem okay with it. "At least you have iphones" is going to define gen Z and gen alpha at this point.
• deanc 5y ago
  There is a difference between a foreign investor, and a foreign resident. I would be furious if my right to buy a home in the country of my residence was influenced solely by the fact i'm not a citizen.
• user3939382 5y ago
  Related, I’m concerned about the trend of megacorporations gobbling up single-family homes which appears to be happening in the US and Canada. I wonder if it’s possible to construct a law that would limit corporate ability to acquire these assets while making it possible for families to do so. Unfortunately, even if there is, politicians at least in DC seem to have zero motivation to solve political problems unless they belong to megacorps or the 0.01% income class.
  • tomrod 5y ago
    Triple or quadruple property taxes after the 10th purchased residence in the state. Encourage tax breaks through high density development of condos with coop property management firms.
    • rch 5y ago
      Why not progressively increment after the second? (not mutually exclusive with other measures)
      • tomrod 5y ago
        Local small-time property ownership encourages land liquidity (that isn't our current issue, but is an issue). That model currently looks good up to a 4plex.
        • beaconstudios 5y ago
          Plus you want to encourage models like a housing co-op - they're pretty good for keeping people's housing costs down and building community relations.
      • hotpotamus 5y ago
        I would guess that tomrod owns 9 houses.
        • tomrod 5y ago
• kay_s438 5y ago
  Singapore enforces 40 percent tax on any foreigners wanting to buy property. Been that way for quite a few years.
  • refurb 5y ago
    Americans are exempted! But it hasn't always been 40% Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD), the government will ramp it up and down to control the private market. It hasn't seemed to had that big of an impact. A small, 2bed condo on land with a 99-year lease costs S$1.6M ($1.2M USD) outside the central business district. But if you really wanted to gain control of home prices and development, just adopt Singapore's 99-year lease policy of land. Once the 99 years is up, it goes back to the government you get $0. Singapore isn't old enough yet to truly see the ramifications (plenty of people are betting they'll get bought out), but the government has said they will stick to it and have stuck to their word in a recent situation where there were 60 year old leases. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/all-191-units-at-geylang-lorong-3-vacated-sla https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/all-191-units-at-geyl... "All 191 units at Geylang Lorong 3 have been vacated and ownership of the 60-year leasehold land has returned to the State, said the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) on Friday (Jan 1)" That land will be cleared and then auctioned off for another 99-year lease to private investors who will build new housing. It's a semi-Georgian policy where the Singapore government captures all of the increased land value and then turns around and uses it to subsidize new public housing or other public benefits.
    • bombcar 5y ago
      The 99 year lease is kinda functionally equivalent to a 1% a year property tax, and somewhat more honest. If I could deed my land to the local government a hundred years from now in exchange for 0% property tax, I'd very likely do it (but the government would probably be sad because they need the cash flow now not later).
• saos 5y ago
  Thats doesn't solve much of the problem tbh. They need to build more homes. Much like the problem in the UK also. But in the UK we need to push back on normal people wanting this property empire and massively over leveraging themselves > The government will also impose higher taxes on people who sell their home within a year. Nice!
  • mschuster91 5y ago
    > They need to build more homes. Why build more homes at enormous expense (both financial and environmental), when most countries have way more than enough homes in total? The problem is two-faced: vacant properties sitting around empty because of money laundering and speculative usage on one side, and on the other side the usage disparity because rural areas have been left behind by modern infrastructure - particularly high speed Internet, mobile phone coverage, public transport and services of everyday living (healthcare, basic shopping).
    • binibus 5y ago
      > vacant properties sitting around empty because of money laundering and speculative usage I don't have the numbers but I find difficult to believe that there's enough properties used for money laundering to move the prices. > usage disparity because rural areas have been left behind by modern infrastructure That's the problem. There are empty houses but too old or in places where people don't want to live. So to low the prices more houses need to be built there where people want to stay. Another solution would be improve the communication channels between cities and rural areas.
      • mschuster91 5y ago
        > I don't have the numbers but I find difficult to believe that there's enough properties used for money laundering to move the prices. In London, up to a third of all properties (depending on the area) are left empty. At that point I don't care if it's money laundering or speculative usage, but London's nickname "Londongrad" more than hints that an awful lot of Russian oligarchs used London real estate to launder stolen money [2]. Personally, I'd be fine to ban all foreign investment into real estate in hot housing markets no matter the country, with the sole exception of primary or secondary residence. [1] https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/how-many-empty-homes-are-there-in-the-uk/ https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/how-many-empty-homes-a... [2] https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/england-london-oligarchen-100.html https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/england-london-oligarch...
• pkorzeniewski 5y ago
  I would like governments in countries with housing crisis to do something different - soft limit how many properties can a person own by inducing taxes that drastically increase with each new owned property. Most people just want to own a roof over their head without getting into debt for life, but because some people treat housing as an investment and buy properties in bulk - which results in prices skyrocketing - they become unaffordable for an avarage Joe who has no other choice but to rent forever and just make the landlords richer.
  • fock 5y ago
    for that you would have to know who (as in a single person) owns everything. Great against corruption, great for democracy. Not so great for our ~oligarchs~ ahem, democrats
• sylware 5y ago
  public housing will probably have to be the major accomodation provider. Since the economy is a scam, expecting it to house everybody in a decent and sane way is just utopia, no better than communism. I heard about Singapore (80%?) and Vienna (65%?, Austria), I am unable to check that or find other places: this information is really tough to get. In my country, it is extremely opaque and _very discret_ (secret?) in the fear of massive abuse from foreigners.
• pards 5y ago
  I'm a homeowner in Toronto and I don't think this will help. They've eliminated a small number of buyers from the market but have added other incentives like a first home buyers tax credit that will only fuel the fire - Australia tried this with tragic results. >> working with provinces and territories to develop and implement a Home Buyers’ Bill of Rights and bring forward a national plan to end blind bidding. Blind bidding is where multiple parties submit a sealed bid on a property. The realtor and seller review these bids behind close doors and then often request subsequent rounds of bids from the bidders *without telling them the current winning bid, or who's bid is winning*. Bidders end up out-bidding themselves. IMHO blind bidding is an unethical practice that should be outlawed regardless of its impact on housing prices.
  • hallway_monitor 5y ago
    I saw an Australian sitcom where the house went up for auction. It was a proper live auction where everyone showed up to bid on the house. I was flabbergasted as I had no idea things were done in any other way than blind bidding as that is how it is always done here in the US.
    • stevesimmons 5y ago
      In Melbourne, this is totally normal. Everyone stands in the street, prospective buyers, neighbours, and people starting their house search. The estate agent stands on the front step, acting as the auctioneer, using the rolled up "Section 32" document like a gavel. Typically the auctioneer draws out bids in $10-20k increments, then knocks it down with a "going once, going twice, going three times..." call. Just before declaring it sold, the agent normally stops, goes inside to consult with the vendor, and if the price is above their reserve price, goes back outside and says "the house is now on the market". Now the auction gets serious... Usually another couple of bidders reveal themselves at this stage. The increments can drop to $1k. If there is a battle between the last two or three bidders, the final price can go up another $50-100k or so. Eventually the final bid is locked in with a final call of "going once, going twice, going three times, to the man in the blue shirt." The winning bidder goes inside with the estate agent, hands over a cheque for 10% of the purchase price, signs the contract part of the Section 32 statement, and is then committed to pay the balance in 60 or 90 days. Sales almost never fall through. If the buyer cannot get financing etc, the seller keeps their 10% deposit. The seller cannot back out. I bought my house like this, and sold it again 20 years later the same way. It's a totally predictable, well regulated, very transparent process. The weekend auction results are all published on Monday morning, both for every house, and the aggregate "clearance rates" for sold versus "passed in". This is so unlike UK, where each sale has a chain of buyers, all "subject to finance", and no certainty or speed!
• jlahp 5y ago
  I appreciate an effort, but how can a student afford a house ? Is it possible that a rich parents can invest in properties through their kids on a student visa?
  • hallway_monitor 5y ago
    A student is not meant to purchase a house. They can live on campus or rent. I don't see any reason for an exception here.
  • 3qz 5y ago
    > Is it possible that a rich parents can invest in properties through their kids on a student visa? Yes, I’ve met many people who do this. The father works in China and sends money to their kid (and sometimes wife) in Canada to buy real estate. Then since the family in Canada is technically low income (no job) they maximize every possible government benefit as well.
  • bombcar 5y ago
    Even before all the housing craziness it was often worth it (if you had the money) to buy a house in a college town for your kid(s) (especially if you had more than one going to the college) and then sell it when they graduate. The cost of ownership over those 4+ years would be cheaper than renting/dorm life, and give more options. It would become even MORE worth it if you rented the other rooms to other students.
• kucukkanat 5y ago
  We need this so bad in the Netherlands right now! Listing price of a house in Amsterdam 525K, bidding price 641K, someone else with 660K comes and takes it away. Cries in pain after 10th bidding war lost :(
  • randomdata 5y ago
    I don't know about the Netherlands, but in Canada, where you see the same scenario play out regularly, it's common to underprice the listing to attract attention (it's an advertisement, after all). The home is selling for fair market value. It's the listing that is misleading.
  • bushbaba 5y ago
    660k is cheap for a SFH these days sadly
    • bombcar 5y ago
      It's all about location - https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5620-Newgate-Cir-N-Stillwater-MN-55082/2215573_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5620-Newgate-Cir-N-Stillw... seems like quite a lot of house for the price to me, but who knows.
  • kmlx 5y ago
    NL can easily implement this. and nothing will change. what actually needs to happen is to change planning laws in order to tackle the massive Nimby-ism holding down society. good luck with that! every time a government proposes taking away some of those Nimby rights there is a massive backlash across the country. so no politician will dare approach this issue because they’ll be out of a job.
• 3qz 5y ago
  The country is ruined for non owners and it will never get better. The only options left are moving to the prairies or living in a neo-feudal shithole. This is only being introduced so they can officially give up after pretending to fix anything. Quality of life has almost nothing to do with income anymore so it’s impossible to work for a better future. Being born 5 years later is the difference between tax free, 6 figure equity gains every year, or renting forever. Boomer janitors are richer than a new Dr. will ever be. The system is broken. Pray for the collapse
  • nameisname 5y ago
    You're spot on about the 5 year difference. I never thought I would see my shit box I bought a few years ago for more than I ever thought it was worth triple in value. It's literally the difference of 5 years as you said. I want to be part of the pray for the collapse team but I know good honest people who would be devastated by it. People who are just victims of the system.
  • symlinkk 5y ago
    This is well written and is something I noticed too during my own house hunt: houses owned by teachers, plumbers, and car mechanics were getting fought over by engineers, doctors, and lawyers.
    • 3qz 5y ago
      A fun thought experiment is trying to imagine what career an 18 year old today should work towards if they want to own one of those homes. VC or Onlyfans? How can anyone plan for the future when prices might double between the start and end of a degree? They did for me… I think the only option left is moving away. Everyone in tech is already doing it
      • bombcar 5y ago
        Moving away is and always HAS been the response; the only reason Seattle is a hotbed of real estate activity is because of the huge influx of people over the last 30 years, escaping rising Californian prices. Currently Arizona and Texas are seeing influxes, and there are other areas, too. It's not like major cities don't exist except on the coasts.
• markus_zhang 5y ago
  I don't think anything serious would happen. No one wants to bug the middle-upper class. See HK.
• pembrook 5y ago
  A quick look at the data suggests only about 2% of properties in Toronto and Vancouver are owned by overseas investors. Yes, housing is priced at the margin, but this won't do anything at all to prices over the long term. I'm sure this will be wildly popular politically, because people LOVE the idea that some foreign boogieman is the reason their children can't afford homes anymore. It's much easier to outsource your problems to some outside "other" then deal with the much harder task of introspection over the poor housing policy that you and your neighbors have voted for over the last 60 years. Like all cities in areas with heavy-handed zoning regulations, abuse of historic preservation clauses, and filibuster-style city council meetings blocking new construction...the issue is one of supply. It's the same problem in literally every developed country on earth right now. The industrious, forward-looking people who originally built the cities during the major growth phase died...and then their kids grew up believing that the way things ended up was somehow divinely ordained. Never to be changed or built upon again.
  • peepop6 5y ago
    • pembrook 5y ago
      Instead of attacking me personally and appealing to an undisclosed authority, I would love to hear a well-reasoned argument against the idea of it being a supply issue. Combine this with the backdrop of 40 years of falling interest rates. Do you really think the foreign boogieman is having a larger effect than the simple explanation of restricted supply and falling interest rates? Prices per sq. foot in Toronto recently surpassed Vancouver. There's no way Toronto has more foreign property investors than Vancouver.
  • willnonya 5y ago
    In the end what is a home that you own if not a public commodity best used in the service of the state... The foreign boogiemen help deflect attention from this element of the argument.
  • sofixa 5y ago
• momirlan 5y ago
  mandate remote work. many office workers in Toronto would sell their homes and move out of the city, even out of the province.
  • randomdata 5y ago
    Haven't they already? As a resident of rural Canada, the price of the average home here is up over 100% since early 2020 when the people of Toronto started moving here.
• martythemaniak 5y ago
  This is mostly for show, it won't do much at all. Nimbyism is Canada's only true national ideology and is strongly supported by all major parties across all levels. Here the feds want to be seen as doing something, but have little actual power so this is a good way to say the did something. Ontario is ruled by a conservative government that's up for reelection this summer. There was a big housing affordability task force that recommended building more houses (shocking!). The government will not be implementing any of its substantial recommendations, but will fiddle around and say they're "cutting red tape". Municipal governments like Toronto are obsessed with controlling development, from suburban conservative councillors trying to outlaw rooming houses, to downtown progressives decrying gentrification. Any correction will come despite all these efforts.
• bsuvc 5y ago
  Intended outcome: lower home prices Actual outcome: higher rent
• philliphaydon 5y ago
  When ever this topic comes on people are like “ohh it doesn’t work” Well it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t work. It’s stopping something that shouldn’t be allowed to begin with. In NZ you could go on a website and buy a house despite the fact you had never set foot in the country. Even if this is only 5% of all buyers they are ruining the market for 90% of buyers because they cause prices to go up when they pay above market rates because they are wealthy. The irony of this is if you’re from Thailand, Japan, China, India, etc. you can buy property in NZ. But I cannot buy property in these countries. Thankfully NZ put a stop to this. And I believe 2022 saw the first actual drop in prices. Maybe one day I can afford to buy a property in NZ. Edit: someone replied pointing out you can buy property in China which is correct. If you live and work in China you can buy but you’re limited to 1 property and I believe you need to sell if you leave China. Thailand you can kinda buy but it’s done by a company that buys for you and you pay them a fee so technically they own it. Japan I don’t really know. All countries in asia are different but it’s all better than what was allowed in NZ.
  • mberning 5y ago
    It also sends a message and sets the tone. The west needs to become much more economically hostile to countries that do not share our values or reciprocate from a policy standpoint. Why should the west make it easy to export work to countries that use defacto slave labor and have horrible human rights violations? We should also make it painful for companies wanting to do business in these places. Maybe if there were more pain involved on the other side of the equation they would take the environment and human rights a little more seriously.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• JSavageOne 5y ago
  Here are some suggestions for improving housing affordability - Land value tax. This incentivizes more efficient land use, such as building denser housing units (eg. apartments) and less wasted space like giant outdoor parking lots - Tax on non-primary residence - Tax on foreign home buyers - Build more housing. I'm not familiar with Canada, but the U.S has many issues with overly restrictive zoning laws preventing the building of affordable housing. Also public housing gets a bad rep, but it works pretty well in Singapore, Korea, Japan, etc.
• wpdev_63 5y ago
  They're about 10 years too late. The chinese have already moved their money into toronto looking at the demographics.
• willnonya 5y ago
  Their whole approach is asinine. If foreign buyers are the level of problem they suggest then removing them from the market is less likely to depress home prices and more likely to convince people they shouldn't put their homes on the market because they can't get top prices. In the end I expect this to have no impact as it seems more likely this is just government attempting to deflect attention away from problems they've created.
• RocketOne 5y ago
  Im one of those 'greedy' old farts who owns more than one home. We have one for ourselves and 5 rentals. Im starting to agree with those who are feeling priced out of the market. What would make me stop buying homes? A graduated tax would. If there were no sales tax on the first two, and then 15% tax on the third, 25% tax on the 4th, and going up by 10% for each subsequent house, it would definitely make me quit buying likely by the 3rd or maybe the 4th house. Too expensive after that. Then that money could go half to the gov, and half to subsidizing first time homeowners by giving them no interest loans for downpayments, or even grants if they qualify at a low enough income. I wouldnt object to that - real estate has been good to me, I think it would be fine if my taxes were helping others to start out.
  • 11101010001100 5y ago
    >What would make me stop buying homes? Are you saying you don't know what to do with your money?
    • inglor_cz 5y ago
      Not the OP, but this is an interesting remark. Stocks aren't as attractive as they used to be, because people seem to be pessimistic about the development of the economy. Stagflation is the word that keeps emerging again and again in conversations of people who never used it two years ago. At the same time, cash is obviously losing its value. So the only thing that attracts investment is real estate, which cannot be printed at will, nor can it really "stagnate" as long as certain cities act as a magnet for immigrants, domestic and/or foreign. Basically, this situation reflects our collective pessimism for the future. If/when people start believing that strong economic growth is around the corner, stocks will soak up some of the money that now flows into bricks and mortar.
  • corry 5y ago
    I agree this is closer to the root of the problem. It's not just foreign capital, or faceless corporate ownership (although both are part of it). IMO it's that every professional / business / owner / wealthy person in Canada can basically easily borrow against their existing home equity, use that to purchase add'l rental units, and claim the mortgage interest as an expense against the rental income (thereby making the loan "free" of cost, although obviously you're still on for the principle). You have the risk of the housing market crashing, but that hasn't seemed realistic for the past 10+ years or so. I'm not sure what the solution would be. I hesitate to even call it a "loophole" since to me, from a business POV, it makes sense (the cost of the debt is an expense to be put against the income, so you shouldn't have to pay tax on it). Then, even if you're just breaking even as a landlord after the interest, property tax, maintenance, vacant times, etc - the underlying asset is appreciating as well. So there needs to be solutions (like graduated tax on subsequent properties, or perhaps changes to being able to claim your mortgage interest as deductible, etc) to change this underlying dynamic. Yes, dramatically increasing the supply of housing would be a better fix, but that's not likely to change quickly while economically de-incentivizing the real estate investment I described above would change things. My $0.02, not an expert.
• osigurdson 5y ago
  I'm surprised people want to move to Canada at all given our low wages, high tax and terrible weather.
  • ckdarby 5y ago
    Low levels of corruptions, relatively progressive views, golden passport for travel and generally a good global reputation. > low wages Work remotely for US company or the 1% of Canadian companies that pay competitive to the US market > high tax Social programs. The taxes get curbed through corp taxes if you're in the .1% - 0.01%. Can always earn and then move elsewhere. > Terrible weather True, but can just escape if the other situations are solved.
    • osigurdson 5y ago
      The take away seems to be that if you are already in the 0.1%, Canada is a great place to get a passport so that you can travel to where you really want to be.
      • ckdarby 5y ago
        In the global top 1-5% it is a fantastic place.
• cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Canada has more housing supply per-capita than the US and many other western countries, but housing prices that are multiples higher (when adjusted for household income). Many analysts have pointed out that Canada in general does not have a housing supply problem. Or not a particularly bad one. What we have is a more generalized housing market problem: bad or badly regulated realtor practices, excessively low interest rates, and excessive speculative investment. Foreign investment does not appear to be the cause, but it's a nice strawman if you want to win elections.
  • kitten_mittens_ 5y ago
    > Canada has more housing supply per-capita than the US and many other western countries... Even in the Vancouver and Toronto metros?
  • to11mtm 5y ago
    Canada's housing supply is not necessarily distributed in a way that serves the populace well however. My understanding is that if you want to live in SK, yeah that's pretty cheap. But if you want to live around Vancouver or Toronto, you gotta pony up.
    • cmrdporcupine 5y ago
      That's become markedly less so in the last two year. Alberta and Saskatchewan, yes, were cheap because oil prices were so depressed for the last 7-8 years. But the rest of the country, even economically beat down areas like the maritimes, have risen drastically. Rural Ontario has skyrocketed. Forget about anywhere in BC. Nova Scotia prices have almost doubled. There is net migration out of Toronto and Vancouver. Prices have risen highest in formerly depressed areas like Hamilton, etc.
• rybosworld 5y ago
  Turning housing into an investment seems like it was a uniquely bad idea.
  • resoluteteeth 5y ago
    This. The only real solution is to implement policies that make housing prices not appreciate so it's not tempting as an investment in the first place. Current attempts to fix the problem are doomed to failure because they are trying to avoid 1) significantly increasing the supply of housing and 2) decreasing the value of houses for people who already own them, but those are the things that are actually causing the problem. Trying to block foreign investors is just a bandaid and it will make no difference. Housing needs to be a depreciating asset.
• txcan 5y ago
  This is virtue signalling from the Liberals. It is a known fact here in Canada that the foreign buyers have anchor proxies as international students who drives Porsche buying up a lot of homes in Canada so that they can "study in peace and quiet of a detached home". Toronto, Montreal and especially Vancouver. This ban is not going to fix anything.
• qeternity 5y ago
  Housing cannot be both affordable and a good investment / retirement plan. Most people's primary savings are the equity in their home. Governments are in for a real sticky treat.
  • mrep 5y ago
    Sure it can, you just need the investment return part to come from the (rent - costs) and not from property price increases. If I have a property where the rent returns 8% after costs, I don't need the property value to increase to make that a good investment.
    • qeternity 5y ago
      Ok, it was implied that my comment was about primary residences.
• dbg31415 5y ago
  Relevant Satire : https://www.thebeaverton.com/2022/04/canada-to-ban-foreign-homebuyers-who-refuse-to-set-up-dummy-corporations/ https://www.thebeaverton.com/2022/04/canada-to-ban-foreign-h... > “Perhaps these foreign homebuyers don’t understand how easy it is to set up an anonymous shell corporation in Canada. Perhaps they stubbornly refuse to spend the extra ten minutes it would take to do so. Perhaps they just don’t like the word ‘shell’,” Trudeau explained. “But rest assured, for this incredibly tiny fraction of international homebuyers, the party is over.”
• twirlock 5y ago
• newaccount2021 5y ago
• convexfunction 5y ago
  Homes are being used as investments by institutions and nonresidents, in the West broadly, because there's a widespread belief (especially among homeowners) that homes should have a large ROI rather than being more of a consumption good, and so policies have slowly gravitated toward furthering that end -- NIMBYism and restrictive zoning laws, basically, but various other stuff too. Call me optimistic, but perhaps if more voters appreciated that "homes should be a good investment for the people owning and living in them" and "homes should be a good investment even if you're not living in them" and "the rent should be too damn high forever" all describe basically the same state of affairs, absent exceptionally well-designed policy that makes those not the same state of affairs, we'd see a slow drift over time away from this regressive nonsense.
• bern4444 5y ago
  This article also said > The government will also impose higher taxes on people who sell their home within a year. Why would they raise taxes on people who decide to sell? Raising taxes on sales will decrease the number of sellers. If the goal is to decrease the price of housing, they should want to increase the number of sellers (partly by reducing taxes on sales) to increase the supply of housing. So backwards.
  • bombcar 5y ago
    The goal is to dissuade flipping, the same reason we have short and long-term capital gains. Nobody should be buying a house intending to sell it within a year, so the sellers affected are those already affected by some external influence (assuming they weren't trying to flip it). The only way to increase sellers by reducing tax is to make it obvious it's a temporary reduction - if you say "anyone who sells in 2022 will do so with no capital gains" you'll create a lot of sellers, but most of those will just buy similar houses nearby. You need to increase sellers without also increasing buyers, which you do by getting more houses to sell (developers as sellers), or getting people to move away (they sell but don't buy), or by having people sell without buying (they die or move in together, or rent, etc).
• Tiktaalik 5y ago
  When British Columbia brought in its 15% Foreign Buyer tax (later raised further) it was at the end of a long campaign by activists to simply collect data on foreign buying. The government shared this data as they were collecting it, and it was only a few weeks before they were so shocked by some of the buying trends that they brought in the tax. In certain municipalities, foreign buying was approaching 20%. So all that experience has me wondering, why hasn't the Feds shared their data? Where is the troubling foreign buying trend? The fact that they haven't done this makes me feel like maybe there is no foreign buying, that BC and Ontario's taxes have pretty much done the job, and that this is a disingenuous attempt to make it appear that they're doing something relevant around housing, while still fundamentally maintaining the status quo approach that has been ineffective for years and years.
• dontcare007 5y ago
  Does Canada have the same problem as the US with "big corps" buying houses to rent out?
• jmyeet 5y ago
  I think this will me largely ineffective but I’m glad it’s happening. Why? Because it’s acknowledgement that there’sa problem. Housing should he first and foremost by the locals for the locals. On the owning side, treat any owners as tax residents and tax their full worldwide income. S much as people hate landlords, someone needs to provide rental units. The solution isn’t for everybody to buy. Not everyone wants that. Not everyone is in a position to do that. But you can give landlords the same treatment: treat them as tax residents and tax their worldwide income. If they’re already local this is no different. Property tax should he based on assessed value. There should Mee no caps (eg Prop 13). If you want to aspire seniors not to be forced out of their homes (a common defense that results in Dismey’s property tax bill in California being straight or if the 60s) then you can carve out exemptions and rebates rather than also including the Larry Ellisons of the world. Second and subsequent properties should have much higher property taxes. Having a property without a beneficial owner should be illegal.
• matt321 5y ago
  The problem with housing costs going up, is that they need to be permanently higher or it will have a bubble burst like effect. Imagine if the state of California did something that cut the real-estate prices down 30%... Well now people who bought when real-estate was 10% lower than the original value are upside down and will panic sell.
  • bombcar 5y ago
    This is the quintessential government problem these days - try to deflate the housing bubble without causing a housing crash, but because of how it runs hotter each time even slowing down itself becomes the instigator of the crash.
• matt321 5y ago
  I live in a self converted 21' sprinter van shurg hosing cost means nothing to me.
• whiplash451 5y ago
  Just curious. Why do they not use second-price auctions for the bidding?
• matrix12 5y ago
  This sounds like something Trump would do, not Trudeau.
• sleepdreamy 5y ago
  This is a false step. You can still purchase a home through a shell, which literally negates this law entirely. Most of the people who are the issue, are using shells with purchases like this. zzzz
• huevosabio 5y ago
  These are boogieman policies that have zero influence on the root cause. Foreign investors jump into the housing market because the current system ensures that the supply of housing is limited so it is an attractive way to park your wealth. But that is not the root cause. The root cause is the system that is geared to keep houses always appreciating via supply constraints: aggressive zoning, discretionary permitting, NIMBYism. Until we liberalize zoning, legalize building, and reject the idea that houses have to be appreciating assets, the issue will continue. As it is often the case, politicians go for the headline with the highest electoral ROI, rather than tackle the real issues.
  • weeksie 5y ago
    It'll be interesting in a couple years when prices are still crazy and someone has to come up with an excuse for why. It's amazing to me how resistant people are to the idea that housing is expensive because there aren't enough homes for people to live in. It's always a search for exotic explanations like foreign buyers and mysterious empty apartments.
    • ihaveajob 5y ago
      What concerns me, as a non-Canadian not living in Canada, is that if a separate cause (i.e. global recession) makes housing prices drop in Canada during this period, NIMBYs everywhere will use that as evidence that "it works", and will try to replicate elsewhere.
      • weeksie 5y ago
        It'll be interesting. Unless the population shrinks I think people will still feel squeezed, since things still won't feel affordable if e.g. interest rates go up and prices stagnate.
    • johnnyanmac 5y ago
      >how resistant people are to the idea that housing is expensive because there aren't enough homes for people to live in. I imagine there are enough homes in both America and Canada (they are two of the largest countries after all). But it's all about location. Very few can even afford to move out to the middle of nowhere just to own land. And not many people that can are willing to turn their potentially short commute to work into a 90+ minute trek everyday. Even with an increase in work from home, there's the whole entertainment aspect of living in the city that makes it a hard sell. When I mean middle of nowhere, I mean a small "town" whose businesses amount to a liquor store, some off brand shopping market, a burger joint, and a 20 year outdated public library. Anything else you need is in the suburbs 30 miles out, and Downtown will be another 30-40 after that. You will quickly bore of any ventures in town and seek a drive to the city where there's actual events going on. If you're a recluse you can make it work, but I can understand millenial aged people not jiving with that style
• geogra4 5y ago
  It's interesting how housing in some countries is seen as a store of value (mostly the anglosphere) whereas in others it's seen as primarily a utilitarian purchase (continental europe and japan) If I had to choose between the 2 models I'd probably pick the euro/japan one, just out of the logic that you need a house to live and hoarding them for wealth generation seems to have a lot of negative externalities on the economy. It's not really a productive use of capital.
• BurningFrog 5y ago
  Blaming foreigners for your problems is an eternal classic. Appeals to our tribal instincts I guess. In reality, foreigners invest in Canadian real estate because it is quickly rising in price. Not the other way. It's hard to get causality directions right sometimes. Especially when xenophobia implies one direction.
• mkl95 5y ago
  Banning all foreign home buyers does not seem too smart, especially for a country that wants to massively increase its population. Also, what happens after those two years? Are they expecting foreign moguls to vanish into thin air?
• isuckatcoding 5y ago
  Also relevant (but satirical): https://www.thebeaverton.com/2022/04/canada-to-ban-foreign-homebuyers-who-refuse-to-set-up-dummy-corporations/ https://www.thebeaverton.com/2022/04/canada-to-ban-foreign-h...
• diebeforei485 5y ago
  This is OK but is not going to solve the housing shortage. What's needed is re-zoning and shifting away from automobile-oriented developments.
• kadomony 5y ago
  Every country should have zoning like Japan. Of course, this would absolutely dilute and depreciate houses as an investment over the long-term, but people would just funnel money into stocks instead. Why would corporations be against this? US zoning is a complete shitshow that’s ruining our country and fostering inconvenient suburban sprawl.
• lbrito 5y ago
  Previous discussion, 12 days ago, 793 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30945444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30945444
• codethief 5y ago
  > The Canadian government will ban foreign homebuyers for two years, AP reported Monday. What does "foreign homebuyer" even mean? If I, as a foreigner, register an LLC (or the Canadian equivalent) in Canada, can this LLC then buy real estate or not? What if that LLC is entirely owned by another Canadian LLC which is then maority-owned by me?
• sparrc 5y ago
  The exception for "foreign students" seems like clearly an invitation to game the system.
• conanbatt 5y ago
  If the diagnosis is that a lot of people are buying something at exorbitant prices, shouldn't the prescription be to build more of them to sell?
• 99_00 5y ago
  That's good but not good enough. Because many foreign buyers are Canadian in name only. So the measure will not succeed. The Astronaut families(1) need to be cut out of the housing market. An Astronaut family is a privileged family where typically the husband works in Asia for high income and low or no tax, while the wife and children live in Canada. They don't declare their foreign income (2). >A revealing new “super-diversity” website created by a University of B.C. geographer, Daniel Hiebert, shows nine of 10 recent Chinese immigrants arrive in Metro Vancouver with enough money to immediately buy homes. But only half hold down jobs during their first five years in Canada, while four of 10 report they’re surviving on low incomes. They are eligible for low income benefits, free healthcare, subsidized education at world class universities (3). They make money in a low tax, low social safety net jurisdiction and live in a high income tax high safety net one. They are taking advantage of an income/tax arbitrage that needs to be closed. Many disadvantaged POC immigrants want to come to Canada to improve their lives and the country. But the privileged families take away their spots, increase housing prices, segregate themselves, and contribute little. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut_family (2) https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-how-chinese-filipino-and-other-immigrants-differ https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-how... (3) https://www.narcity.com/vancouver/ubc-ranked-one-of-the-best-universities-in-the-world-in-these-subject-areas https://www.narcity.com/vancouver/ubc-ranked-one-of-the-best...
• Solvitieg 5y ago
  To be clear, no they didn't. The federal government announced they "intend to propose" a bill on the issue. They haven't proposed anything yet and there's currently no date to do so.
• qiskit 5y ago
  What's a foreigner to a country that allows more than 1 citizenship? What's a foreigner in a country that has a "foreign" royal as head of state? Why were foreigners allowed to buy homes in the first place? Most importantly, why does a country with a population of 35 million and a landmass stolen from the natives the size of china have problem housing their population? Certainly, even if much of canada is tundra, they don't lack the land/resources/etc. If they are having problems housing their population, why are they increasing immigration? Nothing adds up.
  • vkou 5y ago
    > If they are having problems housing their population, why are they increasing immigration? Because this housing crunch isn't coming from the 1% population growth the country's experiencing, it's coming from poor economic planning.
• oyebenny 5y ago
  Atlanta needs this.
• werber 5y ago
  I remember friends squatting in foreign bought apartments in downtown Vancouver 15 or so years ago. Like, floors of luxury buildings empty because it was all a parking space for cash. I have no idea if this will have a significant effect, but, it was so bizarre for me (I'm originally from Detroit) to see these basically empty luxury buildings. It was such a topic when I started University in Vancouver, I can't count the number of times it came up. I personally think the city looks depressing, and Toronto isn't far behind. This is just a personal opinion based on my experiences, but it's so strange when a "dense" area is empty, it feels like a ghost town, like the amount of residential space in Vancouver and the way the streets felt was just so bizarre to me.
• AndyPatterson 5y ago
  Housing market is screaming out for a lot more regulation than this, so I welcome it.
• anamax 5y ago
  I see the "{place} should be affordable for anyone who wants to live in {place}" folks are out again. I'm pretty sure that there are at least 100k, if not 10M, people who'd like to live in Yosemite Valley. Should they be accommodated? Okay, that's transforming "pastoral" to "urban" and they don't mean that. I'm pretty sure that there are 10M more people who'd like to live in London (current metro population 14M, London city is 9k, with 500k workers) and at least 2M more people who'd like to live in San Francisco (current population under 900k). Should those people be accomodated? I ask because whatever it is that makes London and SF "good" will likely change significantly with the addition of that many people. Why are the current residents obligated to accept that change?
  • ng12 5y ago
    > Why are the current residents obligated to accept that change? They're not. They just need to admit they want to turn their city into a giant gated community and have-nots be dammed. Then we can have an open and earnest dialogue about it. Of course, the greatest irony is that many of these cities are heavily progressive so they won't acknowledge the hypocrisy. Instead they'll hide behind environmental regulations or "won't somebody think of the children" or some other nonsense. As a funny anecdote: I've noticed that in the suburbs of my city the incidence of BLM and "In this house we believe..." signs increases with the socioeconomic exclusivity of the town. Seems that progressive ideals are great as long as you don't have to inconvenience yourself in the slightest to achieve them.
    • anamax 5y ago
      > They just need to admit Why do they "need" to do anything? > they won't acknowledge the hypocrisy While I'm perfectly happy to criticize "progressive communities", there's nothing hypocritical about not wanting to live in a London with 25M people.
      • ng12 5y ago
        > While I'm perfectly happy to criticize "progressive communities", there's nothing hypocritical about not wanting to live in a London with 25M people. Yes, there is. If you live in London now it's probably because you or someone in your family benefited from a system that now excludes anyone not already in it. We ditched the landed gentry a few hundred years ago, I'm not super excited about bringing them back.
• fleddr 5y ago
  How odd... There's a housing crisis in Canada, and Australia, both vast countries. Oh, and also the US coasts, and well actually in the Midwest prices also doubled. And the whole of Europe, including low density eastern Europe. ...and still, surely the problem for all of this must be in some local zoning law, or "foreign investors". If only we tweak a little tax or policy here and there and defeat the boogeyman "NIMBY" all of this goes away. Except that it won't. You cannot keep adding boat loads of people to a tiny 5% "hot" area of any of these countries and think it will fit. Any amount of (typically small) new supply is immediately in use, and what about next year? And the year after?
• screye 5y ago
  > Some exceptions will be made for permanent residents With how easy it is to get a permanent residency while on visa in Canada, this is a fair way to keep immigrants happy. > Some exceptions will be made for foreign students. Isn't 'Chinese investors buying canadian property and enrolling their children in schools there' why vancouver's housing market is broken. Allowing foreign students to buy houses will let the big loophole continue as is.
• 8bitsrule 5y ago
  Good idea. It'd be great to see this in the US, along with very limited speculative (no intent to dwell-in) purchasing of second homes until the market for first-time home-owners (and the demand) shrinks dramatically. The use of homes as gambling chips ("investments") has to be stopped. The economic and social costs are egregious, inhuman, self-destructive.
• formerkrogemp 5y ago
  This won't stop foreign home buyers through corporations.
• rapjr9 5y ago
  Perhaps this is an attempt by Canada to keep the American's out? Any investor that believes in climate change has got to be looking at the areas of the world that used to be colder and seeing opportunity. The closer someone lives to the equator the more desirable northern properties are going to look. It's not just the bugs, plants, and animals that are shifting north, the people are also.
• scrumlord 5y ago
  OMG that is so racist!!!!