Canadian Politics Thread

[The Arrogant Worms]

I came across this...

 

It's already been telegraphed the past week by the LPC across most media with their contributors.

They laid the ground work, announcement will be late next week likely.

CMHC insured going to 30 minimum, and potentially longer with a few minor tweaks on refi rules

It's 100% a demand side move, and is targeting making payments lower and qualification easier for FTHB 25-35 range.

[The Arrogant Worms]

Should the feds increase the maximum mortgage repayment period? Experts say yes

https://www.ipolitics.ca/news/should-the-feds-increase-the-maximum-mortgage-repayment-period-experts-say-yes

 

“If all we’re telling people is you got to wait around until there’s more supply which will bring down [housing] prices, that’s five or six years away,” said Tyler Meredith, former economic advisor to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. “There are people on the sidelines now who could use some help.”

[Elias Pettersson]

25 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

What is your guess on Trudeaus “news coming on Mortgages soon” announcement?

 

Also isnt the limit on insured mortgages 25 years? I always thought it was 30 but this article seems to be saying otherwise

edit; ah nvm i see more than 20% down = longer amortization period available so maybe 40 years is ok for those.

 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trudeau-says-news-on-mortgages-is-coming-in-federal-budget-1.2055827 

My guess is as good as yours. If I had to guess I would say that it would have to be something that would make it easier to get a mortgage. So like you said increase the amortization period. The other thing that can be done is to change mortgage qualification rules. The big thing right now that makes it harder to get a mortgage is the qualifying rate having to be 2% above the posted rate. I could see this getting changed to 1%. It used to be 0. I don’t think they will go back to 0 though. 1% would be my guess. 

Edited April 6 by Elias Pettersson

[Miss Korea]

52 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Okay, so now that the name calling is out of the way we can have an actual discussion like the hockey threads. Here we go. 
 

I never made a distinction between housing and everything else because for most people the only thing that matters is housing. I mean what good is it if you have new clothes and lots of shampoo you can afford if you have nowhere to live?  That’s why I never made a distinction. People are worse off today than they ever have been when it comes to being able to live somewhere. There is an entire generation that has been completely wiped out from ever buying a home. That has never happened before in Canadian history. 
 

You say that gas isn’t important and doesn’t consume a lot of a person’s budget, but that is simply not true. It costs me over $400 to fill my car every month. That’s $5k per year in after tax dollars. Not everyone drives an EV. Most people can’t even afford one.  That’s like 5-10% of an average person’s total budget. 

You bring up clothing, footwear, telecommunications, smoking weed. I can tell you right now that I haven’t bought a new pair of shoes in over 5 years. But I have to fill up my tank with gas every week. So how are shoes more important than gas?  People can live their life with not buying new shoes or even new clothes for years. I have suits that are 6 years old. Maybe you need to buy underwear and socks every year, but that’s about it. 
 

Gas is definitely more important than shoes or clothes. I can tell you if someone has no money they will scrounge enough to pay the rent, put food on the table, and put gas in their car. That’s it. Like nobody is smoking weed if they have no money. The only people that are happy about the free weed from the government are the people living on the streets in the downtown east side. With all the free drugs, yes they are better off today than they were in 1998. 
 

Not many people go out to eat anymore. It’s too expensive. However, this was not a problem in 1998. I know. Cause I lived it. We went out to eat every weekend.  Families can’t do that anymore. Every penny they have saved goes to paying the mortgage or the rent. 
 

At the end of the day, the housing crisis of today has superseded everything else. It’s just too damn expensive to live in Vancouver and people are leaving the city in droves. They are either going to the suburbs or just moving right out of the province. 
 

If you want to claim that shoes, clothing, weed and your Telus bill are cheaper now than in 1998, then you can take the W on that one. I don’t have the time to look that stuff up and nobody cares about that anyways. 
 

However, the “cherry picking” that I did with housing and with gas is all people really care about. And we are definitely not better off today than in 1998 on those two fronts. 

 

You spend $400/month on gas, more than double what the average Canadian spends.  You earn at least six figures, automatically putting you into the top 5% of income earners in Canada.  I won't go as far to say you're out of touch with the average Canadian, but certainly your consumer habits are radically different than most.

 

People are irrational.  Money is not.  Your wallet gives zero fucks where your bills go - it only cares about saving money.  If your gas bill goes down $10 and your phone bill also goes down $10, does your wallet value one type of savings over the other?  It does not, and it makes no sense for you to do so either.

 

As an example: if you pay $400/month on gas, you should be paying around $6 extra due to the carbon tax increase.  Is that $6 increase more important to you than the $6 you just saved on your phone bill?  Or the savings from cheaper household appliances?  Why would you treat one dollar more differently than another?

 

Another thing - why are gas prices still shooting up?  We already have the carbon tax added but the price keeps climbing.  The feds don't control the price of gas.  They might give you a tax break by taking off the ¢3.3.  Is that going to be enough to satisfy you?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/business/how-much-are-canadians-paying-per-month-on-average-to-own-a-car-heres-what/article_a457f8e2-c2bb-11ee-b93b-2f3e8fa2fb1d.amp.html

Edited April 6 by Miss Korea

[bishopshodan]

3 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

Blaikie left to join Wab Kinew's team in Manitoba

 

I like the little I know about Blaikie.

Seems like a solid dude. 

[bishopshodan]

I've read housing starts are down again....that obviously doesnt help.

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, Chicken. said:

I know of multiple development applications that are stalled on the developers side, likely playing hardball with the city planners to concede to their preferred demands (ie no rental housing, affordable units, or commercial units), along with multiple examples of developers obtaining a full building permit application permit and waiting years to even begin excavation. Many times the reason application processes take so long is due to waiting for the developer/consultants to make required revisions discovered during plan reviews whether that is urban design/building code/plumbing issues. It happens for sure and while the City's take some of the blame for having old archaic processes (all governments lack innovation, but that is slowly improving and tbh the best use of pouring money into fixing municipal delays) and typical union slowness both sides contribute to the length of time it can take. 
Quality Developers that are quick to revise plans and don’t drag their feet can go from a development application to full building permit inside of 24 months which when you think of all the work that goes into that process isnt bad imo. Of course it then takes years to build after the permit is approved as well lol. And this will get faster as Cities improve their progress towards digitization and automation (again all governments are slow to embrace this but it seems that is finally changing)

 

An insane number of developments are under construction in burnaby/surrey/coquitlam but there is only so much capacity to build at one time.

Developers won’t usually stall developments unless there are mitigating factors. 
 

1.  Wanting more perks and negotiating with the city on that front. 

 

2. Waiting for an increase in density through re-zoning applications. This could take years depending on what they want to build and how much of an increase they want. This goes together with the perks. The city will grant increases in density if the developers build more green space, more parks, low income housing, etc. 

 

3. Waiting for interest rates to drop. Because they have to fund the building costs and all they have are deposit monies from purchases, they may wait until rates drop before they start the project. They usually own the land outright so it’s cheaper just to wait it out. 
 

4. Waiting for presale prices to increase. This has been the biggest issue since COVID and what stalled a lot of developments in 2020 and 2021. 

Edited April 6 by Elias Pettersson

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

I came across this...

 

It's already been telegraphed the past week by the LPC across most media with their contributors.

They laid the ground work, announcement will be late next week likely.

CMHC insured going to 30 minimum, and potentially longer with a few minor tweaks on refi rules

It's 100% a demand side move, and is targeting making payments lower and qualification easier for FTHB 25-35 range.

 

They will need to drop the down payment required to 5% to see uptake, but for 1st time buyers that could be what's needed.

 

Or have they already done this?

[Optimist Prime]

Man, even trying to simply move the lines on the map of land already owned is stalled out at the City Hall end of things.

 

40 parcels of land, roughly adding up to 200 acres of farm land, about 20% forrested and abutting a river. Only two of the parcels have usable river front, so we want to change the lines on the map and adjust the boundaries of up to 5 parcels in order to have three total parcels with roughly equal river frontage. Not for sale, or profit, but simply so that my sisters three kids can have one parcel each with equal 'flaire' on each parcel when it comes time for inheritances to go out. 

 

So that is the basics of the proposal: willing to foot the bill for surveying, and changing the regional mapping which would have some expense but city hall wants Five Acres of prime riverfront 'donated' and a right of way for both sides of the river ((there is another 200 acres in the family over on the other side of the river in its own set of parcels)) leading to the five acres and then a right of way across the first 200 acres total farm for people to access the future park that will be made with the "donated" land.

All for them to say yes to changing the lines on the map to allow three Homes on their own parcel of land each with equal riverfront space. 

What a crock of shit (the land and rights of way will be millions skimmed off my families properties for nothing but 'bribing' city hall to do their job). Pardon my french. And this is just to sort out inheritances....imagine if we wanted to rezone to build and sell for profits? What are those companies being asked to do?

 

I am starting to think the entire problem with housing starts is the tendency for cities and regional districts to be asking too much in the way of "extra" from the builders...we don't need to change building codes, we don't need to allow for massive changes to the zoning: I think all we need to do is cut out the 'ask' from City Halls and R.D.'s. and the 'choke point' on new builds might disappear. 

I remember my builder in Sooke was made to build a 350 thousand dollar bridge on city land over a tiny creek as part of the agreement to allow him to build 28 houses on a strata land area. That alone was a 10 or 15 thousand 'add' to the price of each unit. City hall over reach I suspect is the main culprit, but we will blame the feds won't we?

[Bob Long]

5 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Man, even trying to simply move the lines on the map of land already owned is stalled out at the City Hall end of things.

 

40 parcels of land, roughly adding up to 200 acres of farm land, about 20% forrested and abutting a river. Only two of the parcels have usable river front, so we want to change the lines on the map and adjust the boundaries of up to 5 parcels in order to have three total parcels with roughly equal river frontage. Not for sale, or profit, but simply so that my sisters three kids can have one parcel each with equal 'flaire' on each parcel when it comes time for inheritances to go out. 

 

So that is the basics of the proposal: willing to foot the bill for surveying, and changing the regional mapping which would have some expense but city hall wants Five Acres of prime riverfront 'donated' and a right of way for both sides of the river ((there is another 200 acres in the family over on the other side of the river in its own set of parcels)) leading to the five acres and then a right of way across the first 200 acres total farm for people to access the future park that will be made with the "donated" land.

All for them to say yes to changing the lines on the map to allow three Homes on their own parcel of land each with equal riverfront space. 

What a crock of shit. Pardon my french. And this is just to sort out inheritances....imagine if we wanted to rezone to build and sell for profits? What are those companies being asked to do?

 

Is that Victoria? 

[Optimist Prime]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

Is that Victoria? 

Cowichan Valley Regional District, but South of Duncan.

 

[bishopshodan]

2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Cowichan Valley Regional District, but South of Duncan.

 

beautiful area

[Bob Long]

28 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

beautiful area

 

Sounds a little NIMBY 

[bishopshodan]

36 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Sounds a little NIMBY 

I dont understand.

[Bob Long]

22 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

I dont understand.

 

I'm just joking. @Optimist Prime family is trying to do something reasonable and they are running into static.

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

48 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I'm just joking. @Optimist Prime family is trying to do something reasonable and they are running into static.

 

 

LOL, everywhere is a bit too NIMBY  

[Bob Long]

51 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

LOL, everywhere is a bit too NIMBY  

 

It's just the worst of government, extortion of land just to split it among family.

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

37 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

It's just the worst of government, extortion of land just to split it among family.

 

 

If we trusted the n3xt generation to get along we could just build 3 houses equally spaced and let them move in, lol, but they will fight at some point and need lines on a map.

[Bob Long]

10 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

If we trusted the n3xt generation to get along we could just build 3 houses equally spaced and let them move in, lol, but they will fight at some point and need lines on a map.

 

A legal agreement now could take care of that. Might be possible given how unreasonable the municipality is being.

[Maninthebox]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-dental-care-plan-signup-seniors-dentists-1.7164381

 

The Canadian Dental Care Plan starts next month — but many dentists are reluctant to participate

Edited April 7 by Maninthebox

[I.Am.Ironman]

1 hour ago, Maninthebox said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-dental-care-plan-signup-seniors-dentists-1.7164381

 

The Canadian Dental Care Plan starts next month — but many dentists are reluctant to participate

 

I know quite a few people in the dental field and I can tell you that the government dropped the ball on this pretty hard. Poor patient education (ie. it's not free) and they didn't present the clinics/dentists with proposals until only a few months ago. There are still many details to be sorted and the government expected them to accept their version of "trust me it will work"

[bishopshodan]

3 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said:

 

I know quite a few people in the dental field and I can tell you that the government dropped the ball on this pretty hard. Poor patient education (ie. it's not free) and they didn't present the clinics/dentists with proposals until only a few months ago. There are still many details to be sorted and the government expected them to accept their version of "trust me it will work"

My bro-in-law is a dentist.

He dosen't like it because he doesn't think he will make as much money. 

[I.Am.Ironman]

2 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

My bro-in-law is a dentist.

He dosen't like it because he doesn't think he will make as much money. 

Depends on the dentist i suppose. But it is asking clinics to take on more work for less money... a hard sell to anyone. I don't know if it's the same for the dentists that don't own the clinic. There is a lot of overhead in dentristy, more so than any other medical profession I can think of. Staff all get their 5 (or 10?) paid (by the business, not the government) sick days and there are a lot of staff. You have assistants (there is a shortage so wages are increasing), hygienists, reception. Depending on if the owner of the practice is still paying off a business loan (in the millions), you can see how it gets difficult. I know dentists and lawyers get a bad rep because they are high earners so there is going to be little sympathy but there is more to consider than 'dentists are greedy'.

[bishopshodan]

18 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said:

Depends on the dentist i suppose. But it is asking clinics to take on more work for less money... a hard sell to anyone. I don't know if it's the same for the dentists that don't own the clinic. There is a lot of overhead in dentristy, more so than any other medical profession I can think of. Staff all get their 5 (or 10?) paid (by the business, not the government) sick days and there are a lot of staff. You have assistants (there is a shortage so wages are increasing), hygienists, reception. Depending on if the owner of the practice is still paying off a business loan (in the millions), you can see how it gets difficult. I know dentists and lawyers get a bad rep because they are high earners so there is going to be little sympathy but there is more to consider than 'dentists are greedy'.

He worked hard. Military dentist who went on to open his own practice. Sold it a few years ago for millions, yet still works there part time. He's also a real estate speculator. He and my sister are some of the richest people I know. 

Dentistry served him well, but he also deserves what he made.

 

So all that said, I did laugh  (so did he) when he told me he would make less. Cause,well, he fits the stereotype you speak of...frickin loaded. 

[I.Am.Ironman]

8 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

He worked hard. Military dentist who went on to open his own practice. Sold it a few years ago for millions, yet still works there part time. He's also a real estate speculator. He and my sister are some of the richest people I know. 

Dentistry served him well, but he also deserves what he made.

 

So all that said, I did laugh  (so did he) when he told me he would make less. Cause,well, he fits the stereotype you speak of...frickin loaded. 

 

If I were to do it all again that's probably the direction I would go. Get into dentistry then serve in the military (they pay for tuition + give a 150k salary). I haven't met a dentist that hasn't worked hard to get to where they are. They have essentially gone through medical school.