32 ms·

It looks like a great ruling for increasing the wealth of current homeowners. By only restricting the purpose of new housing, you will increase demand and by ex

by lelag 4y ago

It looks like a great ruling for increasing the wealth of current homeowners. By only restricting the purpose of new housing, you will increase demand and by extension, increase prices of the existing homes. Basically, it seems to be a great scheme for resident to have a new home built at little cost by reselling their existing older home at an increased value.

smt88 4y ago
You have it backwards. Communities that are suddenly purged of investors will suffer a drop in home prices. It's a lot harder to sell a house if you cut off a large and wealthy chunk of the market.
- lelag 4y ago
  No, I don't. If you are serious about limiting the effect of second homeownership, you don't restrict it to new homes but to the whole park. Look at the Swiss Federal Act on Second Homes at https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2015/886/en https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2015/886/en to see a proper legislation to that effect. It prevent alteration of usage of existing homes in communes with second homes in excess of 20%. The measure as described will: - lower the demand and price for buildable terrain - increase demand and price for existing homes Both are financially favourable to existing homeowner residents but not to first time buyer who will still have to compete with investors on the older homes market.
  - smt88 4y ago
    Why is Canada banning foreign investment to reduce home prices? I'm either misunderstanding your claim, or it doesn't make superficial sense. If every home must be a primary residence, you have reduced demand because investors (who are often able to spend more than a resident/owner) can't buy there. Talk to anyone who has tried to buy a house in a developed country in the last 5 years. They were very likely competing with cash offers from investors, often at an insane (I would say speculative) premium. I have observed this locally while looking at condos and vacation homes, but it also makes theoretical sense and is supported by data: https://www.sandiego.edu/business/documents/centers-and-institutes/burnham-moores-real-estate/AirBNB%2520Blog%2520Miller%2520Sklarz.pdf https://www.sandiego.edu/business/documents/centers-and-inst...
    - lelag 4y ago
      I sympathise with the locals woes but you need it to apply to existing and old homes to have the intended effect. They want the ruling to only apply to new buildings which feels more like a get rich quick scheme for homeowners than a change that will help young people which presumably will have to compete on the old house market against investors.
      - smt88 4y ago
        > I sympathise with the locals woes Just to be clear, I don't. I'm a homeowner whose home value would be hurt by measures like these, but I support them anyway. I think it would be hard to pull off, but the country would be better off if landlordship/non-primary homes were heavily taxed or banned altogether. In that vein, I see Airbnb as a cancer on society that is among the most evil and harmful companies that no one realizes is having the effect that it's having.
- yardstick 4y ago
  It’s only a lot harder to sell if you would be selling it for a loss. Most home owners in the area are in this for the long haul. They want people to live here, and invest here. Not just visit from time to time.

by lelag 4y ago

smt88 4y ago

You have it backwards. Communities that are suddenly purged of investors will suffer a drop in home prices. It's a lot harder to sell a house if you cut off a large and wealthy chunk of the market.

lelag 4y ago
No, I don't. If you are serious about limiting the effect of second homeownership, you don't restrict it to new homes but to the whole park. Look at the Swiss Federal Act on Second Homes at https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2015/886/en https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2015/886/en to see a proper legislation to that effect. It prevent alteration of usage of existing homes in communes with second homes in excess of 20%. The measure as described will: - lower the demand and price for buildable terrain - increase demand and price for existing homes Both are financially favourable to existing homeowner residents but not to first time buyer who will still have to compete with investors on the older homes market.
- smt88 4y ago
  Why is Canada banning foreign investment to reduce home prices? I'm either misunderstanding your claim, or it doesn't make superficial sense. If every home must be a primary residence, you have reduced demand because investors (who are often able to spend more than a resident/owner) can't buy there. Talk to anyone who has tried to buy a house in a developed country in the last 5 years. They were very likely competing with cash offers from investors, often at an insane (I would say speculative) premium. I have observed this locally while looking at condos and vacation homes, but it also makes theoretical sense and is supported by data: https://www.sandiego.edu/business/documents/centers-and-institutes/burnham-moores-real-estate/AirBNB%2520Blog%2520Miller%2520Sklarz.pdf https://www.sandiego.edu/business/documents/centers-and-inst...
  - lelag 4y ago
    I sympathise with the locals woes but you need it to apply to existing and old homes to have the intended effect. They want the ruling to only apply to new buildings which feels more like a get rich quick scheme for homeowners than a change that will help young people which presumably will have to compete on the old house market against investors.
    - smt88 4y ago
      > I sympathise with the locals woes Just to be clear, I don't. I'm a homeowner whose home value would be hurt by measures like these, but I support them anyway. I think it would be hard to pull off, but the country would be better off if landlordship/non-primary homes were heavily taxed or banned altogether. In that vein, I see Airbnb as a cancer on society that is among the most evil and harmful companies that no one realizes is having the effect that it's having.
yardstick 4y ago
It’s only a lot harder to sell if you would be selling it for a loss. Most home owners in the area are in this for the long haul. They want people to live here, and invest here. Not just visit from time to time.