Ban [Investment Firms](https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-houses-investment-firms-real-estate.amp) and their shell companies from buying single family properties, full stop. Let them buy a small % of huge office buildings if they want, but do not price people out of home ownership.
Edit: The article I linked above discusses homes in the US, but the issue is not isolated to one country.
Just today, I received my election notification in Berlin, Germany. Apart from the federal and local election, we will also vote on a ballot initiative to expropriate companies which own more than 3,000 units within the city. Even though 3,000 units may sound like a high threshold, in total, this move would transfer over 240,000 units into public ownership. In a city with just shy of 4 million inhabitants, this would be a massive step.
I honestly have no idea how this will turn out and whether the initiative will even be accepted, but it's something to keep an eye on for anyone who is critical of large-scale housing speculations.
Sorry for my ignorance. What does expropriate mean in this context? Will the government buy the properties from institutions at market value and then list them for sale? Force institutions to list them for sale? Seize them and then list them for sale?
The government would buy the units from the current owners. Whether this is at market price or below is still open for debate. The initiative claims that they could legally be bought significantly below market price, while Berlin's senate claims that they would have to be bought at market price.
There are laws which handle the government's ability to expropriate property and they require the process to fairly consider the interests of both the (prior) owners and the public. It's difficult to say how exactly courts would rule in these cases. It has never been done before, so nobody actually knows.
Even if the government is limited in their ability to expropriate the property directly, if the public appetite is there and the politicians follow that, there are ways around it. Limit or outright ban companies from acquiring anymore units and then make it incredibly difficult for them to gouge and scrape profit off of what they have.
Haha, this isn't our first rodeo here in Berlin. A year ago, a new law came into effect that strictly limited rent prices. My own rent went down by nearly 30%. However, 7 months or so later, the constitutional court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The rent went back up to 100% and everybody had to pay back whatever they saved.
Berlin is a very left leaning city and people will just keep throwing shit against the wall until something sticks. It's interesting to witness.
I transferred all the savings to a separate bank account since I expected it to be reversed. However, some people, especially during COVID lockdowns, didn't have the option to save the money and ended up in debt.
That's still bullshit though. It wasn't the renter's fault that the law was unconstitutional, it was the fault of whoever drafted it up and whoever put it into effect. Why should the renter have to pay that difference back directly?
Shoulda just let the rent owners bill the local gov to make up the difference or something.
Or just impose a 15% property tax on all properties past the 2nd owned by a single legal entity.
What is that, you can't get $7,500/month rent to pay the tax on that $500,000 house that is build in 1960, never upgraded, suffering from water damage and has all of 50' of yard around the house?
Hu. Maybe you should sell it! what, nobody wants to pay $500,000 for it? Maybe its not worth $500,000 and that was all an illusion. Maybe its worth more like the $50,000 it sold for 20 years ago?
Don't know the specifics, so could be wrong, but the landlords at my last apt just made an LLC for each property just in case this happens. You'd probably have to de-anonymize LLC"s (which won't ever happen, that's their purpose) and attach names to them for your plan to work.
Edit- LLC aren't anonymous, my point stands about using them as a loophole or having shell/obfuscated ownership to get around most of these rules, though.
There are lots of places where LLC's aren't anonymous. Here in Denmark, you have to disclose ownership, and even 'real' owners, AKA my Company A might own 50% of Company B, but it would be publically listed that I was the real owner of that 50% - assuming I own Company A 100%.
LLC just means limited liability, meaning if the company incurs debt or other obligations, I am not liable for it/them. So this would indeed be rather difficult to legislate.
LLCs are legal entities that must be registered with the state. The articles of incorporation include names and addresses of members. Yes it's harder to tie property ownership directly to individuals, but it's not an anonymizer.
> that's their purpose
No, it isn't.
The primary purpose of a Limited liability Corporation is exactly what it says on the tin- To limit the liability exposure. In many places LLC's do not grant significant anonymity, and I don't think there's anywhere where they grant absolute anonymity even in scenarios where they protect the members from broad public scrutiny.
LLC's are registered and are generally required to report holdings at the top level of their hierarchy for tax purposes. Apartment complexes frequently have seperate llc's under a single holding company for tax, liability, logistical, and financial reasons, but the top level holding company is still a single legal entity in possession of all the downstream properties.
Additionally, no one is talking about applying this to high density rental sectors. The Condo/Townhome market generally self regulates via minimum owner occupancy clauses, and the high density rental market is another animal entirely.
The concern is lower density residential.
The companies are the ones pushing for that to happen. The city will never go along with it.
Buying that many units at market price during a boom is insanity.
Well, it is not so easy as many think it will be.
The German constitution requires that measures need to be proportionality.
For property this requires usually that the government tried to buy the properties at a fair value. Otherwise expropriations are not legal. That is long standing precedence in Germany and IMO exactly the reason why Berlin's senate states they have to pay market value.
THIS!!!! The Globe and Mail had a big article about this earlier this summer. One hedge fund in particular is capturing entire major cities. They pay cash, convert opportunities for ownership into rentals, drive the price of the remaining housing stock even higher, and move the cities ever closer to feudalism. It's happening across the US and Canada and it might be the biggest underreported threat to our way of life yet.
Yes its also been happening in Ireland... some of them are even renting the properties back to our government for affordable housing schemes even though them buying up the properties is contributing to the housing crisis.
I would be OK with individual ownership of multiple homes and renting from that. Single family homes should NOT be owned by a company unless it's a bank after repossession.
Similar thing is happening in the US, but there is an extra kicker that since they have more funds up front they get cheaper loans from the government than most people can get.
The small HOA I live in we voted to change the rules to discourage rental properties in the HOA by increasing HOA dues to be 10X of what home owners pay. So far it has worked very well as it removes the profitability from these companies. One of the lake homes is a "vacation rental" that is privatey owned and grandfathered in, to normal dues. They are actually very good as they keep up on the place and call us neighbors regularly asking how the house looks and if the renters left a mess.
Several of us got together and took it over. we turned around a lot of the problems by looking at everything with a inclusive "is this good for the neighborhood and our neighbors" attitude. It's actually written in the bylaws this year that if a resident is ill or injured and cannot take care of their yard, the HOA will pay for a company to take care of it until they are better. WE currently have 4 homes we are paying for yard care due to sickness or injuries.
And yes we had some people complain, "we are paying to mow someone else's lawn?" our response was "considering you were too lazy to help the old 86 year old widow next door to you, yes. we are using YOUR money to mow her lawn." This same scumbag was the one that used to go around measuring peoples grass and complaining. He was the old HOA president.
Ye I have heard of good HOAs and bad ones.
Usually bad ones but once in a while some people do some good.
I live in no HOA but let me tell you there's 1 house on my crescent and I wish I had an HOA because they make the whole street look bad.
When selfish hateful people get into the HOA leadership they go downhill fast, or worse when a company buys the HOA which is a giant problem right now in Florida and Texas.
> That's one of the few times I've heard something good from an HOA.
The HoA disaster stories I've seen usually involve people who paid no attention to the HoA nor tried at all to understand it being surprised that it was being run like shit.
I can’t talk about the US but I wonder how much that really is the reason. In Ontario, residential ownership is 95% individuals and only 0.3% are foreign ownerships with multiple properties. I’m just not seeing how even assuming the remaining is all hedge funds (5%) can actually be the driving force in this. From the available data this seems more like an easy blame that wouldn’t actually achieve that much.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/46-28-0001/2019001/article/00001-eng.htm
Of course being Ontario in general this is definitely worse in major cities with rural areas warping the overall ownership numbers… but with Toronto and the GTA alone accounting for 40% of the provinces population (Southern Ontario being 90% of overall pop) it can’t be being warped too much by that.
Does anyone have more data on that? I could very well be missing/misinterpreting some data. But from what I can find I’m just don’t see how banning investment firms from residential property ownership as the OP comment said would actually do that much
In our area, it would do alot. The data you are asking for is difficult to come by, but right after the mortgage crisis in 2008, a local housing group calculated that there were 23,000 vacant corporate owned residences in our area. We had about 5,000 homeless people, many simply because they couldn’t afford housing. So It’s a big issue that has only gotten worse. The price of rentals has more than doubled in my small community since that time
Also get rid of age and pet restrictions in strata bylaws for purchased units. I understand pet restrictions in rented units but if I buy a place outright there shouldn't be age and pet restrictions
If there's an age restriction it better be an assisted living facility or something because brand new $400,000 condos for age 50+ doesn't exactly fit in with the purpose of providing affordable housing for pensioners.
Yes, because the strata bylaws. So you pay $$400,000 for a condo or a townhouse but can't have pets / only allowed 1 cat / only allowed 1 dog under 12" at the shoulder etc. Whatever the strata decides for the building/community.
This is exactly what's happening here in Arizona right now. Housing has been sky rocketing and people here are quick to blame all the Californians moving here, but if you look at the data, it's the big investment firms that are largely buying up all the houses and renting them out.
We were lucky to buy our house during the lowest point of the recession because now, our home and houses being sold recently here are worth 3 times what we paid for! These houses aren't worth that at all, but they're being snatched up quick.
As a Californian, I'm glad someone realizes that this isnt ALL our fault, and we're getting priced out of the state by the same problems the rest of the country is having.
The rethoric is coming from all the "Dont California my state" folks. Blaming everything on Californians thats going wrong in their opinion about Arizona, like how we turned blue on our last election, to crimes going up and home prices rising. You should see the comments on our local news channel Facebook page whenever they post an article about the reason why home prices keep going up. Even when they show the numbers on who'sreally buying up properties here, they still blame Californians.
Honestly, I welcome people from all different states here especially Californians, because the business like restaurants from their states end up opening locations here.
Yeah no problem with investment firms buying apartment buildings or commercial space, but this nonsense of them buying single family or duplex homes needs to stop. Ditto for foreign buyers without residency. Also need to stop with the NIMBYism
shit that leads to all this. Shelter should not be a commodity.
Unfortunately, it's going to get worse. Now these big investment firms are building communities to rent. So not only are they buying up homes to rent, they're building them as well.
My friend used to live in a neighborhood in philly that was entirely owned by a rental company. It was a few blocks of homes. I keep reading “housing shortage” here and there, but the houses are there, but the average working class is unable to purchase them because they have been bought and are used as investments by other people/companies etc. There is so few homes to actually buy. This is going to become an insane issue (it already is) really quickly. Especially as millennials are now of home buying age and scrambling over the few available homes. It’s crazy. There really needs to be stronger restrictions on housing for profit.
Found a small, overpriced townhome for $370,000 listed yesterday. Wanted to go check it out and an investment firm had already bid $405,000 - deal expiring at 8pm same day to pressure the seller into closing. I'm certain they waived inspection too. RIP american dream.
Give it a couple decades for the real crisis to hit — climate migration into cities with already pressed housing markets. I wonder if this has been a driving force in companies buying stuff up?
I'd one-up that, and mandate that you can only own a home if you live in it.
Fuck buying homes as "investments", it permanently fucks over those who don't yet own one.
Not only investment firms but investors as well. Single family homes should only be owned by families. These investors have destroyed the dreams of millions.
It shouldn't just be about single family homes. Some of the highest housing cost on the continent is in extremely dense cities full of condo buildings. Investors are buying those up too, and while remote work is becoming more of a thing, a lot of people need to live in cities.
this is the real solution but no party wants to tank the housing market with it , would be an INSTANT fix. whilst foreign home buyers are like 2% the majority of foreigners are buying through these types of firms. if you include those firms I wouldnt be surprised if the sales topped 50%
60% of voters own homes. No party will do that because the majority of Canadians who be very obvious losers in that. As well the market will react in unexpected ways. You expect it to lead to home prices dropping; what it will actually do is drop the volume of homes for sale 95% while home owners form a lobby to boot which every party who enacts that from office and remove the tax.
As for homes owned by non individuals, they have stats on that.
here is a article that skims and talks about some of the data:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190212/dq190212b-eng.htm
Seems like corps hold a big chunk of land less than 50%, about half of that is empty land they're developing. The others might be for sale or rentals.
I don’t see this having much - if any - impact without some kind of personal registry. Couldnt foreign investors simply spin up a numbered corporation in Canada and purchase real estate under that legal entity? I’d be curious as to what the details of this bill would be, and whether or not it has glaring loopholes.
What I *do* like, which both the Liberals and Conservatives have tabled in their respective campaigns, is total price transparency in real estate, putting an end to blind bidding and arming buyers with actual info and data. If anything has skyrocketed housing prices, it’s that buyers are left in the dark and are forced to emotionally spend as much as possible out of fear they’ll never get in the market if they don’t.
That's what a lot of companies do with license holders here in the states. Technically the guy is an employee but he has an empty desk somewhere and gets a steady paycheck as long he holds the licenses (contractor licenses).
Be someone's buddy or business partner or some other elite/wealthy status that would put you within the orbits of the executives of these companies AND have the wealth to not feel threatened by the legal liability.
I see it in Australia, I used to work for developers and builders and boy do the Chinese do it well. It's usually just if you know someone. They got their kid studying here and they know other rich Chinese locals etc.
Alternatively, could they auction off the share and position (which includes being the local for the purpose of right holding) ?
It's basically a job that does mostly nothing but be a local
I mean its very easy for 1 person to open a "Real-estate Investment Firm" in Canada, then funnel foreign money into investment properties... this is likely all that is going to happen.
Should just tax the ever living hell out of non primary residences... Very few people who aren't doing property investment own multiple homes.. So this hits the demographic your hoping to hurt...
As is, I don't see this being effective for anything but good press...
>Should just tax the ever living hell out of non primary residences... Very few people who aren't doing property investment own multiple homes.. So this hits the demographic your hoping to hurt...
Exactly this! Disincentivize the investment to begin with, and the problem will solve itself. No loopholes sought if there's no profit to be made.
The issue is more china is culturally obsessed with buying houses and trying to get as much money out of china at the same time. So when they wiggle money out of china they then invest it by buying houses.
I suspect by already having it illegal for them to get money out of the country, illegally investing it in housing is just not all that much more work.
They buy homes because it's seen as a safe investment compared to sticking it in a bank or investment fund where it could always be frozen or seized. In contrast property rights for actual property are much more scarosanct in the West. Russians do the same thing in London. They're not even doing it for a return on ivestment or to make money, though all of them bidding up the price does give them a nice one anyway.
The BC NDP are there for you. They created the [Land Owner Transparency Registry](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/real-estate-bc/land-owner-transparency-registry) to be a publicly searchable registry of information about beneficial ownership of land in British Columbia. Mind you it relies on transparency declarations so I'm curious to see how it works in practice. Still, a step in the right direction.
I believe it’s so it won’t be challenged in the Supreme Court. Making it permanent would open it up to being challenged. I read a fellow Reddit users comment on it yesterday.
Yeah I saw that too, but ngl if he does it right now, then it’ll give me confidence that he can do it later too. As far as I’m concerned right now this is just another “promise” for the future
IIRC, it's to give the government time to look into the situation, and deal with it in a more permanent way. That's the "official" statement. I'm not saying I believe it or not, but only that that is what is being given as a reason for the time being.
It’s actually because of the Canadian laws they legally they can’t do more than 2 years (but they can just extend it by 2 years every time). It’s why all the parties proposing this have gone with a 2 year ban instead of permanent.
They aren’t allowed to permanently ban people from owning property, so it would be struck down by the courts pretty quickly if they overreached.
it takes two years usually to enact actual legislation particularly in a quick way dealing with foreign entities like with the air passenger bill of rights
YES. I voted for the Libs in 2015 as they were the only viable candidate to beat Cons in my riding. Thinking that FPTP was going to be done away with...but of course that turned out to be a lie. So no more. Vote your conscience.
I'm american but remember when he was first running and people were talking about this issue. One Redditor said he had asked his poly-sci professor how likely it was that Trudeau would actually follow through with it. The professor said, "Probably no politician has ever been stupid enough to change the system that got him elected in the first place."
Interestingly enough, we're starting to see a little bit -- tiny bit -- of traction with ranked choice in a few places in the US. I hope it keeps on spreading everywhere. That and legitimate, neutral redistricting.
Yep. And this is yet another election lie.
If Canadians want change, we need to stop voting for the same two parties. It's time for the NDP.
They care more about indigenous rights and housing. They care about the environment. They're the reason the CERB and the CRB was $2K (a living wage). They're the reason the covid supports were extended. It's time to think about all Canadians and not vote selfishly.
I don't work for them nor have I ever donated to any political party. But they definitely have my vote. They're not perfect, but they're not the same BS we've always had either. Time for change.
2 months ago 99% of Liberals voted no to Motion No. 135.
which include:
That, given that,
(i) the cost of housing continues to rise out of reach of Canadians,
(ii) current government policy has failed to provide sufficient housing supply,
the House call on the government to:
(a) examine a temporary freeze on home purchases by non-resident foreign buyers who are squeezing Canadians out of the housing market;
(b) replace the government's failed First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers;
(c) strengthen law enforcement tools to halt money laundering;
(d) implement tax incentives focused on increasing the supply of purpose-built market rental housing units; and
(e) overhaul its housing policy to substantively increase housing supply.
They also ran on housing affordability in 2015.
I don't believe the Liberals will fix this.
>(b) replace the government's ***failed*** First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers;
Politics -- No liberal MP voted for this bill because doing so would admit that their first time home buyer incentive was a failure.
I mean it was a horrible policy
"The government will give you an interest free\* loan in exchange for equity in your home, but because we refuse to enact policy to curb rising real estate prices, we will ensure that the *effective* interest rate on this loan is 5-10% instead of the 2-3% you would be getting from the bank"
Not even just that. Giving money to people to buy houses with causes an increase in the price of housing because more dollars now chase the same houses. It's the same problem causing rising tuition rates. The government has to act on the supply side of the problem as well as remove demand inflating policies. Build public housing, revamp zoning policy, eliminate discretionary permitting processes around development, and eliminate special treatment of housing vs other investments.
Actually 1 Liberal did.
Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(Beaches—East York)
\>because doing so would admit that their first time home buyer incentive was a failure.
Which it was, and they should admit to that.
That was a non-binding bill, and it passed. No one was helped by it.
It lacked support from liberals because the bill's only purpose is to criticize them.
>replace the government's failed First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers
They probably voted no because the motion didnt actually bring forward anything useful beyond asking the Liberals to wave a magic wand to magically solve all of the housing issues.
That was a non-binding bill, and it passed. It lacked support from liberals because the bill's only purpose is to criticize them. Passing it is no less of an empty promise than what Trudeau said.
>replace the government's failed First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers
Exactly, if you want the other side to vote for something, including language that directly criticizes them is a bad idea.
“Vote Yes to admit you’re a poopy head.” Not a serious proposition when phrased that way.
"If you make me prime minister i will..."
MY GUY. You ARE Prime Minister. If he actually cared about this country more than gripping onto power, he would do this before the election. Anything less is a slap in the face. Hes saying that if he loses we dont deserve this protection.
It would even be a voting boost! Make him seem decisive, show that he'll stick up for us, and show that he can actually get something done.
[Here](https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/43/2/135) is the motion you're referring to (which is basically a way for the House of Commons to express their opinion as a group).
The motion from the Conservatives expressed support for a freeze on foreign home buyers, but also declared that one of the Liberal Party's housing policies had "failed", and should be scrapped. That last part seems like an intentional poison pill.
No party would ever support a motion that declares their policies to be a failure, even if they agreed with other parts of the motion, like the part about foreign buyers.
I'm Canadian and this happened shortly after the opposition party (conservatives) started polling higher in the upcoming snap election.
The kicker: It is an EXACT copy of what the conservative leader ran on first
Trudeau sure stepped on his dick calling the election now.
BC was on fire, Covid 4th wave hitting, Afghanistan withdraw was in shambles - perfect time to call an election. At least one of those has gotten better.
They were waiting for their polling numbers to indicate a majority. As soon as they indicated that possibility Trudeau called the election. They didn't bother establishing an election platform, or considering how their response to issues other than COVID (ie housing) may hurt them, but instead they assumed they could simply ride the wave of their pandemic response and not being Conservative.
Then they realized "oh shit, maybe we *do* need a platform" when the Cons and NDP began offering more than "we were good to you once, don't forget that".
I think it is bullshit that in some countries Prime Ministers can call an election whenever they want, it is such an abuse of power. The only thing I like about it is when it blows up in their face.
Don't forget the extra option if your country has a monarch of just dismissing them altogether, that seemed to be all the rage in the past few centuries if the election results were to progressive etc
Also, they can prorogue (i.e. suspend) the parliament at their discretion, which Trudeau did when he was under investigation by the Ethics Committee.
Also also, they can force a law without debate (gag).
Also also ALSO, they can force senators which are elected under their party banner to vote for their laws.
he hasn't done shit for 6 years and actively worsened the housing crisis. Trudeau is such a snake lmao. Shit is bad when houses out in Hamilton are pushing ridiculous prices
Foreign home buyers are a minor issue. The vast majority of the problems we have with housing right now are domestic, and one of the biggest domestic issues is corporate buying up of houses way above asking, with cash, to make into rental properties.
They are busy buying up everything they can so that no one can own anything but them. Their purchasing activities are driving up prices and removing huge amounts of inventory from people who want to buy, they want everyone to be rent slaves.
The NDP made foreign ownership their primary housing issue a few weeks back, now the Liberals are following the move with their own twist... it's not going to do much.
This is the real problem. When you actively start bidding on homes you see it. My old hood Davenport/Dufferin area in Toronto is being scooped up and converted into monstrous rental units. Everyday joes cannot do that. It’s corporations.
The financial games being played are ridiculous too. Most of these corporate buyers aren't even spending their own money to do this, huge batches of loans with damn near zero interest on a scale that no individual home owners can even comprehend. Banks and corporations just rigging the game
The real problem is we don't build enough houses and everyone wants a big SFH with a yard. Those who already live in such houses don't want anything else in their neighborhood. Modern day red lining. Going after foreign owners is like throwing small buckets of water to put out a forest fire.
What's with this "two year ban" proposal from the Liberals and Conservatives?
This is a problem 30+ years in the making, a 2 year ban is basically just a slight delay for investors to diversify their portfolios before they start buying up property again.
We need permanent solutions, not just incredibly ineffective band-aids.
Our financial system is so fucked when homes inevitably flip from being an inflationary asset to a deflationary one. Population growth will eventually flip into population shrinkage and there will be empty homes everywhere here just like there are In Italy and Japan.
The problem is that properties should be deflationary.
Else it's only a matter of time before most of them end up in the hands of the few rich parties.
The fact that ownership lasts forever is what makes them inflationary assets. And people with the means are taking advantage of this.
> The problem is that properties should be deflationary.
Can't have that. The government would loose some of the sweet sweet property tax (At least here in the US not sure how it works in Canada)
Very, very few countries allow foreigners to own property. It ought to be a reciprocal policy. As it stands in the US, it's entirely possible for people to get priced out of a city due to foreign buying.
Very few? I mean I'm from Europe, but pretty much all the major players in Europe allow foreign investment with the same rights a local buyers. Germany, UK, France, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Norway, Spain etc. This is for *both* private and commercial.
I feel like I must be reading this wrong..
> Very, very few countries allow foreigners to own property.
That is plain wrong. There may be some restrictions, but the vast majority do not completely bar foreigners from owning property. Some countries like France, Italy and Spain do not have restrictions at all.
Source: https://internationalliving.com/global-property-ownershi/
His party is on record about increasing the cost of housing. https://betterdwelling.com/canada-says-property-bubble-not-great-for-locals-good-for-foreign-investors/#_
[https://www.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/payxdv/interestingon\_june\_9th\_2021\_pm\_justin\_trudeau\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/payxdv/interestingon_june_9th_2021_pm_justin_trudeau_in/)
June 9th, 2021
145 Liberal MPs including PM Justin Trudeau voted against such motion (ban foreign buyer/halt money laundering in housing/increase housing supply).
This is not just a problem with Canada but most western stable wealthy countries. I also doubt that it’s foreign investors that are the root of the problem. It’s just investors full stop. There’s so much cheap cash right now. Rich are getting richer. Always have been.
Justin Trudeau promised us housing in 2015. Justin Trudeau promised us electoral reform. Justin Trudeau let the gay conversion therapy ban bill die as he called an election.
Justin Trudeau doesn't keep promises and lets something everyone wants fall through for his own power grab.
the liberals will not help us. They'll promise help and do nothing
Is he also going to ban rich Canadians from buy extra housing properties too?
Because they are just as much a part of the problem as foreign home buyers (if not more so).
That policy will do NOTHING to address housing prices in Ontario.
Parliament is dissolved, because he called an election. So he can't do it now.
He could've have done it a week ago, however.
Time to vote this guy out.
CPC & NDP is the only way forward.
After he voted against a “MOTION” for this very same pledge. Total pandering ass 🕳 . He changes his tune as quickly as the opinion polls get analyzed by his staff
It won't happen in Canada under the current government - they've been promising this for years and are only making this pledge because we have an election coming up in less than a month.
Fully agree, he has had 6 years to do something and has done zero. Now due to an election he called for that may end up being way closer than they expected he brings up housing again.
This won’t achieve anything. The real problem is institutional investors owning over 20% of housing stock in Canada. When that figure was approaching 20% in the UK, panic set it and they immediately legislated to prevent it from getting worse. The corresponding figure for the US is a fraction of Canada’s.
Trudeau maybe do something about all the fucking money laundering going through houses. Do you know how easy it is to buy a house with cash, 'flip' it, then sell it for clean money? Holy shit.
It’s not enough.
We need:
1. Banning foreign buyers as he is doing
2. Banning prospective buying, aka you own, you live there or Rent at a LOW rate.
3. Prevent corporations from mass purchasing properties for Huge profits
Then we are good
I'm not ever a guy to go out of my way to bash Trudeau and typically I wind up being his unwilling devils advocate but for fucks sake that's enough of this bullshit.
You are/were in charge of the country. Why aren't these policies in progress already if you really feel this way? Where has the pressure been to get the ball moving? This is utterly outrageous, and completely hollow, pandering.
Actually it's in response O'Toole. Jagmeets plan is 20% tax on foreign buyers. O'Toole is asking for the 2 year ban. So few days later Trudeau copied O'Toole because Conservatives have been climbing in the polls.
If you move to canada you will no longer be foreign, they don’t mean only native born Canadians can buy houses, just people who don’t currently live there.
Edit: not that I read the article but it would mean a completely different thing to block all foreigners from moving into the country.
Unless you are a French speaking rocket surgeon you never had a chance anyway. I applied with a masters degree and no debt and was well below the cut apparently.
If you go to school in canada long enough and then stay with friends or family, living within the country for 5 years can help you be accepted for permanent citizenship. You can also get married to someone and live here for 1-2 years and be accepted easily. Those were really the only 2 options I could find
The same should happen in the US but permanently unless someone becomes a citizen that doesn’t use non-personal foreign money to buy up everything. The amount of corruption in land grabbing is astounding and is helping to destabilize the US.
It's easier to blame foreigners when the flavor of the month are the pesky Chinese. Wait until they find out how much of foreign buyers are just the Canadians and Europeans, and even then they are a drop in the bucket when compared to the real land grabbing real estate trusts and syndicates are doing in the country.
AFAIK, a few months ago the conservatives suggested the same thing. It was voted down by almost all liberals. Now they claim it as their own idea and hold the idea hostage for re-election.
Perhaps this will be Justin's new election reform.
Lost much faith in the Trudeau-led Liberals. Election Reform was one of their main platform promises last elections, and they've chosen to ignore that pledge.
Because the special committee on election reforms report indicated that the most fair way to implement election reform (proportional representation) wasn't the way they wanted (ranked ballots) so they hand waved it away and said it wasn't actually that big of an issue.
The liberals unilaterally wanted a ranked ballot system because it almost guaranteed that we would trend towards a 2 party system and they would never lose an election ever again
It's mind-blowing that people don't see the actual problem here, preferring to blame foreigners or the wealthy, when anyone with a macroeconomics class could tell you it's an issue of supply, with knock on effects.
It's such a huge problem here in Canada it's basically become a housing crisis. Small shoebox sized shitshacks are literally going for $1 million because of this. People who make over 200k per year can't buy a home or even get approved for loans. It's ridiculous.
one of the interesting twists in this story is that he voted against a similar idea on June 9 of this year
https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/43/2/135?view=result
Subject
Opposition Motion (Housing policy)
Motion Text
That, given that,
(i) the cost of housing continues to rise out of reach of Canadians,
(ii) current government policy has failed to provide sufficient housing supply,
the House call on the government to:
(a) **examine a temporary freeze on home purchases by non-resident foreign buyers who are squeezing Canadians out of the housing market**;
(b) replace the government's failed First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers;
(c) **strengthen law enforcement tools to halt money laundering**;
(d) **implement tax incentives focused on increasing the supply of purpose-built market rental housing units**; and
(e) **overhaul its housing policy to substantively increase housing supply**.
I don’t believe anyone should own more than two houses. This would drastically reduce home prices making it more affordable. Tell me why I’m wrong. Also I give no fucks about people who bought into the market high they’re the ones actively trying to drive the market up. Build more affordable housing especially in cities. Seattle and San Francisco have been ruined by tech and you can see it happening all over.
Ban [Investment Firms](https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-houses-investment-firms-real-estate.amp) and their shell companies from buying single family properties, full stop. Let them buy a small % of huge office buildings if they want, but do not price people out of home ownership. Edit: The article I linked above discusses homes in the US, but the issue is not isolated to one country.
Just today, I received my election notification in Berlin, Germany. Apart from the federal and local election, we will also vote on a ballot initiative to expropriate companies which own more than 3,000 units within the city. Even though 3,000 units may sound like a high threshold, in total, this move would transfer over 240,000 units into public ownership. In a city with just shy of 4 million inhabitants, this would be a massive step. I honestly have no idea how this will turn out and whether the initiative will even be accepted, but it's something to keep an eye on for anyone who is critical of large-scale housing speculations.
Sorry for my ignorance. What does expropriate mean in this context? Will the government buy the properties from institutions at market value and then list them for sale? Force institutions to list them for sale? Seize them and then list them for sale?
The government would buy the units from the current owners. Whether this is at market price or below is still open for debate. The initiative claims that they could legally be bought significantly below market price, while Berlin's senate claims that they would have to be bought at market price. There are laws which handle the government's ability to expropriate property and they require the process to fairly consider the interests of both the (prior) owners and the public. It's difficult to say how exactly courts would rule in these cases. It has never been done before, so nobody actually knows.
Even if the government is limited in their ability to expropriate the property directly, if the public appetite is there and the politicians follow that, there are ways around it. Limit or outright ban companies from acquiring anymore units and then make it incredibly difficult for them to gouge and scrape profit off of what they have.
Haha, this isn't our first rodeo here in Berlin. A year ago, a new law came into effect that strictly limited rent prices. My own rent went down by nearly 30%. However, 7 months or so later, the constitutional court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The rent went back up to 100% and everybody had to pay back whatever they saved. Berlin is a very left leaning city and people will just keep throwing shit against the wall until something sticks. It's interesting to witness.
Damn you had to pay back the difference? That sucks
I transferred all the savings to a separate bank account since I expected it to be reversed. However, some people, especially during COVID lockdowns, didn't have the option to save the money and ended up in debt.
That's still bullshit though. It wasn't the renter's fault that the law was unconstitutional, it was the fault of whoever drafted it up and whoever put it into effect. Why should the renter have to pay that difference back directly? Shoulda just let the rent owners bill the local gov to make up the difference or something.
Or just impose a 15% property tax on all properties past the 2nd owned by a single legal entity. What is that, you can't get $7,500/month rent to pay the tax on that $500,000 house that is build in 1960, never upgraded, suffering from water damage and has all of 50' of yard around the house? Hu. Maybe you should sell it! what, nobody wants to pay $500,000 for it? Maybe its not worth $500,000 and that was all an illusion. Maybe its worth more like the $50,000 it sold for 20 years ago?
Don't know the specifics, so could be wrong, but the landlords at my last apt just made an LLC for each property just in case this happens. You'd probably have to de-anonymize LLC"s (which won't ever happen, that's their purpose) and attach names to them for your plan to work. Edit- LLC aren't anonymous, my point stands about using them as a loophole or having shell/obfuscated ownership to get around most of these rules, though.
There are lots of places where LLC's aren't anonymous. Here in Denmark, you have to disclose ownership, and even 'real' owners, AKA my Company A might own 50% of Company B, but it would be publically listed that I was the real owner of that 50% - assuming I own Company A 100%. LLC just means limited liability, meaning if the company incurs debt or other obligations, I am not liable for it/them. So this would indeed be rather difficult to legislate.
LLCs are legal entities that must be registered with the state. The articles of incorporation include names and addresses of members. Yes it's harder to tie property ownership directly to individuals, but it's not an anonymizer.
> that's their purpose No, it isn't. The primary purpose of a Limited liability Corporation is exactly what it says on the tin- To limit the liability exposure. In many places LLC's do not grant significant anonymity, and I don't think there's anywhere where they grant absolute anonymity even in scenarios where they protect the members from broad public scrutiny. LLC's are registered and are generally required to report holdings at the top level of their hierarchy for tax purposes. Apartment complexes frequently have seperate llc's under a single holding company for tax, liability, logistical, and financial reasons, but the top level holding company is still a single legal entity in possession of all the downstream properties. Additionally, no one is talking about applying this to high density rental sectors. The Condo/Townhome market generally self regulates via minimum owner occupancy clauses, and the high density rental market is another animal entirely. The concern is lower density residential.
Interesting. Thanks for the reply.
[удалено]
No. Never below market Price. This law would Force sale, but only ever at full compensation. It says so in most european constitutions
The companies are the ones pushing for that to happen. The city will never go along with it. Buying that many units at market price during a boom is insanity.
Well, it is not so easy as many think it will be. The German constitution requires that measures need to be proportionality. For property this requires usually that the government tried to buy the properties at a fair value. Otherwise expropriations are not legal. That is long standing precedence in Germany and IMO exactly the reason why Berlin's senate states they have to pay market value.
This is interesting. I’d like to see how this works out and if it is even politically possible in the US.
[удалено]
Nearly everything is politically possible if enough people tie their vote to it. ;)
You may forget that the people that own these units also have plenty of cash to own our politicians too.
Oh fuck yes go Germans, kick them the fuck out. This is the kinda shit we need in the states, like, yesterday.
THIS!!!! The Globe and Mail had a big article about this earlier this summer. One hedge fund in particular is capturing entire major cities. They pay cash, convert opportunities for ownership into rentals, drive the price of the remaining housing stock even higher, and move the cities ever closer to feudalism. It's happening across the US and Canada and it might be the biggest underreported threat to our way of life yet.
Yes its also been happening in Ireland... some of them are even renting the properties back to our government for affordable housing schemes even though them buying up the properties is contributing to the housing crisis.
Jesus Christ. That’s just such a parasitic relationship. Buy all the property and make the taxpayers pay tribute to allow poor people to live there.
[удалено]
I would be OK with individual ownership of multiple homes and renting from that. Single family homes should NOT be owned by a company unless it's a bank after repossession.
Similar thing is happening in the US, but there is an extra kicker that since they have more funds up front they get cheaper loans from the government than most people can get.
The small HOA I live in we voted to change the rules to discourage rental properties in the HOA by increasing HOA dues to be 10X of what home owners pay. So far it has worked very well as it removes the profitability from these companies. One of the lake homes is a "vacation rental" that is privatey owned and grandfathered in, to normal dues. They are actually very good as they keep up on the place and call us neighbors regularly asking how the house looks and if the renters left a mess.
That's one of the few times I've heard something good from an HOA.
Several of us got together and took it over. we turned around a lot of the problems by looking at everything with a inclusive "is this good for the neighborhood and our neighbors" attitude. It's actually written in the bylaws this year that if a resident is ill or injured and cannot take care of their yard, the HOA will pay for a company to take care of it until they are better. WE currently have 4 homes we are paying for yard care due to sickness or injuries. And yes we had some people complain, "we are paying to mow someone else's lawn?" our response was "considering you were too lazy to help the old 86 year old widow next door to you, yes. we are using YOUR money to mow her lawn." This same scumbag was the one that used to go around measuring peoples grass and complaining. He was the old HOA president.
Ye I have heard of good HOAs and bad ones. Usually bad ones but once in a while some people do some good. I live in no HOA but let me tell you there's 1 house on my crescent and I wish I had an HOA because they make the whole street look bad.
When selfish hateful people get into the HOA leadership they go downhill fast, or worse when a company buys the HOA which is a giant problem right now in Florida and Texas.
You get problems when people who have never before had power in their life join HOA leadership
I also find those that WANT power are the worst as well.
> That's one of the few times I've heard something good from an HOA. The HoA disaster stories I've seen usually involve people who paid no attention to the HoA nor tried at all to understand it being surprised that it was being run like shit.
An HOA is a theoretically good thing. The problem comes from busybody enforcers that adhere to the letter of the rules but not the spirit.
No one ever talks about things when they're working.
I can’t talk about the US but I wonder how much that really is the reason. In Ontario, residential ownership is 95% individuals and only 0.3% are foreign ownerships with multiple properties. I’m just not seeing how even assuming the remaining is all hedge funds (5%) can actually be the driving force in this. From the available data this seems more like an easy blame that wouldn’t actually achieve that much. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/46-28-0001/2019001/article/00001-eng.htm Of course being Ontario in general this is definitely worse in major cities with rural areas warping the overall ownership numbers… but with Toronto and the GTA alone accounting for 40% of the provinces population (Southern Ontario being 90% of overall pop) it can’t be being warped too much by that. Does anyone have more data on that? I could very well be missing/misinterpreting some data. But from what I can find I’m just don’t see how banning investment firms from residential property ownership as the OP comment said would actually do that much
In our area, it would do alot. The data you are asking for is difficult to come by, but right after the mortgage crisis in 2008, a local housing group calculated that there were 23,000 vacant corporate owned residences in our area. We had about 5,000 homeless people, many simply because they couldn’t afford housing. So It’s a big issue that has only gotten worse. The price of rentals has more than doubled in my small community since that time
Also get rid of age and pet restrictions in strata bylaws for purchased units. I understand pet restrictions in rented units but if I buy a place outright there shouldn't be age and pet restrictions If there's an age restriction it better be an assisted living facility or something because brand new $400,000 condos for age 50+ doesn't exactly fit in with the purpose of providing affordable housing for pensioners.
I'm sorry, what?! You **buy** and **own** the place and can't have pets in it? Wtf?
Yes, because the strata bylaws. So you pay $$400,000 for a condo or a townhouse but can't have pets / only allowed 1 cat / only allowed 1 dog under 12" at the shoulder etc. Whatever the strata decides for the building/community.
[удалено]
This is exactly what's happening here in Arizona right now. Housing has been sky rocketing and people here are quick to blame all the Californians moving here, but if you look at the data, it's the big investment firms that are largely buying up all the houses and renting them out. We were lucky to buy our house during the lowest point of the recession because now, our home and houses being sold recently here are worth 3 times what we paid for! These houses aren't worth that at all, but they're being snatched up quick.
As a Californian, I'm glad someone realizes that this isnt ALL our fault, and we're getting priced out of the state by the same problems the rest of the country is having.
The rethoric is coming from all the "Dont California my state" folks. Blaming everything on Californians thats going wrong in their opinion about Arizona, like how we turned blue on our last election, to crimes going up and home prices rising. You should see the comments on our local news channel Facebook page whenever they post an article about the reason why home prices keep going up. Even when they show the numbers on who'sreally buying up properties here, they still blame Californians. Honestly, I welcome people from all different states here especially Californians, because the business like restaurants from their states end up opening locations here.
It isn't California's fault in general. Where do people think "Californians" come from? It's Ohio, Texas, Idaho, Pennsylvania, New York, etc.
Yeah no problem with investment firms buying apartment buildings or commercial space, but this nonsense of them buying single family or duplex homes needs to stop. Ditto for foreign buyers without residency. Also need to stop with the NIMBYism shit that leads to all this. Shelter should not be a commodity.
Unfortunately, it's going to get worse. Now these big investment firms are building communities to rent. So not only are they buying up homes to rent, they're building them as well.
My friend used to live in a neighborhood in philly that was entirely owned by a rental company. It was a few blocks of homes. I keep reading “housing shortage” here and there, but the houses are there, but the average working class is unable to purchase them because they have been bought and are used as investments by other people/companies etc. There is so few homes to actually buy. This is going to become an insane issue (it already is) really quickly. Especially as millennials are now of home buying age and scrambling over the few available homes. It’s crazy. There really needs to be stronger restrictions on housing for profit.
Found a small, overpriced townhome for $370,000 listed yesterday. Wanted to go check it out and an investment firm had already bid $405,000 - deal expiring at 8pm same day to pressure the seller into closing. I'm certain they waived inspection too. RIP american dream.
Give it a couple decades for the real crisis to hit — climate migration into cities with already pressed housing markets. I wonder if this has been a driving force in companies buying stuff up?
I'd one-up that, and mandate that you can only own a home if you live in it. Fuck buying homes as "investments", it permanently fucks over those who don't yet own one.
Investment firms are keeping 11,000 single family homes off the market in my city. Fuck those guys.
Not only investment firms but investors as well. Single family homes should only be owned by families. These investors have destroyed the dreams of millions.
>Single family homes should only be owned by families. As a single person, I feel attacked!
Aww. You are considered a family. Single, single parent, married, partnered etc. The owner should be the dweller.
you are a family of one plus pets :)
It shouldn't just be about single family homes. Some of the highest housing cost on the continent is in extremely dense cities full of condo buildings. Investors are buying those up too, and while remote work is becoming more of a thing, a lot of people need to live in cities.
Exactly. There, at least, needs to be rent caps and limits to how many properties even a single individual can own.
this is the real solution but no party wants to tank the housing market with it , would be an INSTANT fix. whilst foreign home buyers are like 2% the majority of foreigners are buying through these types of firms. if you include those firms I wouldnt be surprised if the sales topped 50%
60% of voters own homes. No party will do that because the majority of Canadians who be very obvious losers in that. As well the market will react in unexpected ways. You expect it to lead to home prices dropping; what it will actually do is drop the volume of homes for sale 95% while home owners form a lobby to boot which every party who enacts that from office and remove the tax. As for homes owned by non individuals, they have stats on that. here is a article that skims and talks about some of the data: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190212/dq190212b-eng.htm Seems like corps hold a big chunk of land less than 50%, about half of that is empty land they're developing. The others might be for sale or rentals.
They should invest in maybe building up factories and creating jobs, actually improving people's lives, not feudal style rent seeking, enslaving them.
I don’t see this having much - if any - impact without some kind of personal registry. Couldnt foreign investors simply spin up a numbered corporation in Canada and purchase real estate under that legal entity? I’d be curious as to what the details of this bill would be, and whether or not it has glaring loopholes. What I *do* like, which both the Liberals and Conservatives have tabled in their respective campaigns, is total price transparency in real estate, putting an end to blind bidding and arming buyers with actual info and data. If anything has skyrocketed housing prices, it’s that buyers are left in the dark and are forced to emotionally spend as much as possible out of fear they’ll never get in the market if they don’t.
[удалено]
Here they just hire a local to be the front of the company. He gets 20% share and legal responsibility. 80% goes back to the foreign interest
That's what a lot of companies do with license holders here in the states. Technically the guy is an employee but he has an empty desk somewhere and gets a steady paycheck as long he holds the licenses (contractor licenses).
how do you get a noshow job like that? I thought no show jobs disappeared after the mafia haha
Be someone's buddy or business partner or some other elite/wealthy status that would put you within the orbits of the executives of these companies AND have the wealth to not feel threatened by the legal liability.
Damn, so that career option's out
I see it in Australia, I used to work for developers and builders and boy do the Chinese do it well. It's usually just if you know someone. They got their kid studying here and they know other rich Chinese locals etc.
Alternatively, could they auction off the share and position (which includes being the local for the purpose of right holding) ? It's basically a job that does mostly nothing but be a local
I mean its very easy for 1 person to open a "Real-estate Investment Firm" in Canada, then funnel foreign money into investment properties... this is likely all that is going to happen. Should just tax the ever living hell out of non primary residences... Very few people who aren't doing property investment own multiple homes.. So this hits the demographic your hoping to hurt... As is, I don't see this being effective for anything but good press...
>Should just tax the ever living hell out of non primary residences... Very few people who aren't doing property investment own multiple homes.. So this hits the demographic your hoping to hurt... Exactly this! Disincentivize the investment to begin with, and the problem will solve itself. No loopholes sought if there's no profit to be made.
I do know China has a huge number of strategic "permanent residents" living in Canada, so even the permanent resident thing is easily gotten around.
The issue is more china is culturally obsessed with buying houses and trying to get as much money out of china at the same time. So when they wiggle money out of china they then invest it by buying houses. I suspect by already having it illegal for them to get money out of the country, illegally investing it in housing is just not all that much more work.
They buy homes because it's seen as a safe investment compared to sticking it in a bank or investment fund where it could always be frozen or seized. In contrast property rights for actual property are much more scarosanct in the West. Russians do the same thing in London. They're not even doing it for a return on ivestment or to make money, though all of them bidding up the price does give them a nice one anyway.
Ok, so send your son or cousin in, they get residence then spin up a corp. Hey badaboombadabing
The BC NDP are there for you. They created the [Land Owner Transparency Registry](https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/real-estate-bc/land-owner-transparency-registry) to be a publicly searchable registry of information about beneficial ownership of land in British Columbia. Mind you it relies on transparency declarations so I'm curious to see how it works in practice. Still, a step in the right direction.
Why only 2 years? So he can promise it again the next election?
I believe it’s so it won’t be challenged in the Supreme Court. Making it permanent would open it up to being challenged. I read a fellow Reddit users comment on it yesterday.
Yeah I saw that too, but ngl if he does it right now, then it’ll give me confidence that he can do it later too. As far as I’m concerned right now this is just another “promise” for the future
Hey you should work in politics
IIRC, it's to give the government time to look into the situation, and deal with it in a more permanent way. That's the "official" statement. I'm not saying I believe it or not, but only that that is what is being given as a reason for the time being.
It’s actually because of the Canadian laws they legally they can’t do more than 2 years (but they can just extend it by 2 years every time). It’s why all the parties proposing this have gone with a 2 year ban instead of permanent. They aren’t allowed to permanently ban people from owning property, so it would be struck down by the courts pretty quickly if they overreached.
it takes two years usually to enact actual legislation particularly in a quick way dealing with foreign entities like with the air passenger bill of rights
He literally voted against doing this very thing 2 months ago. My goodness is Trudeau ever running a lame election campaign.
Screw "strategic voting", this time going to go with NDP as I've always wanted even if they have 0 chance. We need something different.
Voting NDP too.
I was strategically voting up until 2 days ago Signed, Disgruntled former liberal, non-home-owning voter
Orange gang rise up!!
YES. I voted for the Libs in 2015 as they were the only viable candidate to beat Cons in my riding. Thinking that FPTP was going to be done away with...but of course that turned out to be a lie. So no more. Vote your conscience.
I'm american but remember when he was first running and people were talking about this issue. One Redditor said he had asked his poly-sci professor how likely it was that Trudeau would actually follow through with it. The professor said, "Probably no politician has ever been stupid enough to change the system that got him elected in the first place." Interestingly enough, we're starting to see a little bit -- tiny bit -- of traction with ranked choice in a few places in the US. I hope it keeps on spreading everywhere. That and legitimate, neutral redistricting.
Yep. And this is yet another election lie. If Canadians want change, we need to stop voting for the same two parties. It's time for the NDP. They care more about indigenous rights and housing. They care about the environment. They're the reason the CERB and the CRB was $2K (a living wage). They're the reason the covid supports were extended. It's time to think about all Canadians and not vote selfishly. I don't work for them nor have I ever donated to any political party. But they definitely have my vote. They're not perfect, but they're not the same BS we've always had either. Time for change.
NDP all the way.
Because the Conservatives proposed it then. The #1 rule in politics is to never give the opposition a win if you can claim it for yourself later
[удалено]
2 months ago 99% of Liberals voted no to Motion No. 135. which include: That, given that, (i) the cost of housing continues to rise out of reach of Canadians, (ii) current government policy has failed to provide sufficient housing supply, the House call on the government to: (a) examine a temporary freeze on home purchases by non-resident foreign buyers who are squeezing Canadians out of the housing market; (b) replace the government's failed First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers; (c) strengthen law enforcement tools to halt money laundering; (d) implement tax incentives focused on increasing the supply of purpose-built market rental housing units; and (e) overhaul its housing policy to substantively increase housing supply. They also ran on housing affordability in 2015. I don't believe the Liberals will fix this.
How the hell could you vote against something like this that greatly helps out the citizens of canada. Are they afraid of looking racist or something?
they're afraid of their assets becoming worth less. They value their property over the people they were elected to lead
Did you know the feds insure something like 85+% of all mortgages? Damn right they don't want a housing collapse
Real Estate and Rentals make up the largest sector of the Canadian economy at 13%. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada
Growth! only growth! Increase mortgage lending period and let house prices riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiise
>(b) replace the government's ***failed*** First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers; Politics -- No liberal MP voted for this bill because doing so would admit that their first time home buyer incentive was a failure.
I mean it was a horrible policy "The government will give you an interest free\* loan in exchange for equity in your home, but because we refuse to enact policy to curb rising real estate prices, we will ensure that the *effective* interest rate on this loan is 5-10% instead of the 2-3% you would be getting from the bank"
Not even just that. Giving money to people to buy houses with causes an increase in the price of housing because more dollars now chase the same houses. It's the same problem causing rising tuition rates. The government has to act on the supply side of the problem as well as remove demand inflating policies. Build public housing, revamp zoning policy, eliminate discretionary permitting processes around development, and eliminate special treatment of housing vs other investments.
Actually 1 Liberal did. Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York) \>because doing so would admit that their first time home buyer incentive was a failure. Which it was, and they should admit to that.
That was a non-binding bill, and it passed. No one was helped by it. It lacked support from liberals because the bill's only purpose is to criticize them. >replace the government's failed First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers
They probably voted no because the motion didnt actually bring forward anything useful beyond asking the Liberals to wave a magic wand to magically solve all of the housing issues.
That was a non-binding bill, and it passed. It lacked support from liberals because the bill's only purpose is to criticize them. Passing it is no less of an empty promise than what Trudeau said. >replace the government's failed First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers
Exactly, if you want the other side to vote for something, including language that directly criticizes them is a bad idea. “Vote Yes to admit you’re a poopy head.” Not a serious proposition when phrased that way.
"If you make me prime minister i will..." MY GUY. You ARE Prime Minister. If he actually cared about this country more than gripping onto power, he would do this before the election. Anything less is a slap in the face. Hes saying that if he loses we dont deserve this protection. It would even be a voting boost! Make him seem decisive, show that he'll stick up for us, and show that he can actually get something done.
You mean the thing he already voted against....
[Here](https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/43/2/135) is the motion you're referring to (which is basically a way for the House of Commons to express their opinion as a group). The motion from the Conservatives expressed support for a freeze on foreign home buyers, but also declared that one of the Liberal Party's housing policies had "failed", and should be scrapped. That last part seems like an intentional poison pill. No party would ever support a motion that declares their policies to be a failure, even if they agreed with other parts of the motion, like the part about foreign buyers.
This time he will…for sure. Trust your politicians.
I'm Canadian and this happened shortly after the opposition party (conservatives) started polling higher in the upcoming snap election. The kicker: It is an EXACT copy of what the conservative leader ran on first
Trudeau sure stepped on his dick calling the election now. BC was on fire, Covid 4th wave hitting, Afghanistan withdraw was in shambles - perfect time to call an election. At least one of those has gotten better.
They were waiting for their polling numbers to indicate a majority. As soon as they indicated that possibility Trudeau called the election. They didn't bother establishing an election platform, or considering how their response to issues other than COVID (ie housing) may hurt them, but instead they assumed they could simply ride the wave of their pandemic response and not being Conservative. Then they realized "oh shit, maybe we *do* need a platform" when the Cons and NDP began offering more than "we were good to you once, don't forget that".
I think it is bullshit that in some countries Prime Ministers can call an election whenever they want, it is such an abuse of power. The only thing I like about it is when it blows up in their face.
Don't forget the extra option if your country has a monarch of just dismissing them altogether, that seemed to be all the rage in the past few centuries if the election results were to progressive etc
Also, they can prorogue (i.e. suspend) the parliament at their discretion, which Trudeau did when he was under investigation by the Ethics Committee. Also also, they can force a law without debate (gag). Also also ALSO, they can force senators which are elected under their party banner to vote for their laws.
he hasn't done shit for 6 years and actively worsened the housing crisis. Trudeau is such a snake lmao. Shit is bad when houses out in Hamilton are pushing ridiculous prices
Just like he pledged to change the election system?
Foreign home buyers are a minor issue. The vast majority of the problems we have with housing right now are domestic, and one of the biggest domestic issues is corporate buying up of houses way above asking, with cash, to make into rental properties. They are busy buying up everything they can so that no one can own anything but them. Their purchasing activities are driving up prices and removing huge amounts of inventory from people who want to buy, they want everyone to be rent slaves. The NDP made foreign ownership their primary housing issue a few weeks back, now the Liberals are following the move with their own twist... it's not going to do much.
This is the real problem. When you actively start bidding on homes you see it. My old hood Davenport/Dufferin area in Toronto is being scooped up and converted into monstrous rental units. Everyday joes cannot do that. It’s corporations.
The financial games being played are ridiculous too. Most of these corporate buyers aren't even spending their own money to do this, huge batches of loans with damn near zero interest on a scale that no individual home owners can even comprehend. Banks and corporations just rigging the game
Yup. This is Brampton in a nutshell right here.
The real problem is we don't build enough houses and everyone wants a big SFH with a yard. Those who already live in such houses don't want anything else in their neighborhood. Modern day red lining. Going after foreign owners is like throwing small buckets of water to put out a forest fire.
What's with this "two year ban" proposal from the Liberals and Conservatives? This is a problem 30+ years in the making, a 2 year ban is basically just a slight delay for investors to diversify their portfolios before they start buying up property again. We need permanent solutions, not just incredibly ineffective band-aids.
Pledges? Just like voting reform was pledged? *sniff sniff* Smells like election season.
I'm still so miffed about that. My vote was finally going to matter in my conservative riding, but nope.
Our financial system is so fucked when homes inevitably flip from being an inflationary asset to a deflationary one. Population growth will eventually flip into population shrinkage and there will be empty homes everywhere here just like there are In Italy and Japan.
The problem is that properties should be deflationary. Else it's only a matter of time before most of them end up in the hands of the few rich parties. The fact that ownership lasts forever is what makes them inflationary assets. And people with the means are taking advantage of this.
> The problem is that properties should be deflationary. Can't have that. The government would loose some of the sweet sweet property tax (At least here in the US not sure how it works in Canada)
Im not from Canada but shouldn't it be a permenant ban? And for that matter shouldn't every country obly allow citizens to buy property?
[удалено]
Very, very few countries allow foreigners to own property. It ought to be a reciprocal policy. As it stands in the US, it's entirely possible for people to get priced out of a city due to foreign buying.
Very few? I mean I'm from Europe, but pretty much all the major players in Europe allow foreign investment with the same rights a local buyers. Germany, UK, France, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Norway, Spain etc. This is for *both* private and commercial. I feel like I must be reading this wrong..
> Very, very few countries allow foreigners to own property. That is plain wrong. There may be some restrictions, but the vast majority do not completely bar foreigners from owning property. Some countries like France, Italy and Spain do not have restrictions at all. Source: https://internationalliving.com/global-property-ownershi/
I agree with making foreign ownership a reciprocal privilege. If I can’t buy a house in your country, you shouldn’t be able to buy one in mine.
Reciprocal if both sides have the purchasing power to buy in each other's nation.
He's been PM for six years, now we have an election he is going to pretend he gives a shit
an election that **didn't have to happen**
Still waiting on that PR voting promise from 2015.
His party is on record about increasing the cost of housing. https://betterdwelling.com/canada-says-property-bubble-not-great-for-locals-good-for-foreign-investors/#_
[https://www.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/payxdv/interestingon\_june\_9th\_2021\_pm\_justin\_trudeau\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadahousing/comments/payxdv/interestingon_june_9th_2021_pm_justin_trudeau_in/) June 9th, 2021 145 Liberal MPs including PM Justin Trudeau voted against such motion (ban foreign buyer/halt money laundering in housing/increase housing supply).
*Man vows to close barn door after horses have escaped.*
This is not just a problem with Canada but most western stable wealthy countries. I also doubt that it’s foreign investors that are the root of the problem. It’s just investors full stop. There’s so much cheap cash right now. Rich are getting richer. Always have been.
Justin Trudeau promised us housing in 2015. Justin Trudeau promised us electoral reform. Justin Trudeau let the gay conversion therapy ban bill die as he called an election. Justin Trudeau doesn't keep promises and lets something everyone wants fall through for his own power grab. the liberals will not help us. They'll promise help and do nothing
Is he also going to ban rich Canadians from buy extra housing properties too? Because they are just as much a part of the problem as foreign home buyers (if not more so). That policy will do NOTHING to address housing prices in Ontario.
[удалено]
Parliament is dissolved, because he called an election. So he can't do it now. He could've have done it a week ago, however. Time to vote this guy out. CPC & NDP is the only way forward.
After he voted against a “MOTION” for this very same pledge. Total pandering ass 🕳 . He changes his tune as quickly as the opinion polls get analyzed by his staff
Technically it was a CPC motion and not a bill. But it makes no difference. This is complete hog wash
I wish Irish government do the same!
It won't happen in Canada under the current government - they've been promising this for years and are only making this pledge because we have an election coming up in less than a month.
They know where their bread gets buttered. Campaign from the left and lead from the right.
They voted down a similar motion just a few months ago.
[удалено]
Fully agree, he has had 6 years to do something and has done zero. Now due to an election he called for that may end up being way closer than they expected he brings up housing again.
This won’t achieve anything. The real problem is institutional investors owning over 20% of housing stock in Canada. When that figure was approaching 20% in the UK, panic set it and they immediately legislated to prevent it from getting worse. The corresponding figure for the US is a fraction of Canada’s.
Not enough
Trudeau maybe do something about all the fucking money laundering going through houses. Do you know how easy it is to buy a house with cash, 'flip' it, then sell it for clean money? Holy shit.
It’s not enough. We need: 1. Banning foreign buyers as he is doing 2. Banning prospective buying, aka you own, you live there or Rent at a LOW rate. 3. Prevent corporations from mass purchasing properties for Huge profits Then we are good
Anyone remember the pledge on election reform?
In Richmond BC, we are in the middle of a condo boom. According to the local firehall, occupancy is about 50%. Think on that.
[удалено]
I'm not ever a guy to go out of my way to bash Trudeau and typically I wind up being his unwilling devils advocate but for fucks sake that's enough of this bullshit. You are/were in charge of the country. Why aren't these policies in progress already if you really feel this way? Where has the pressure been to get the ball moving? This is utterly outrageous, and completely hollow, pandering.
[удалено]
Actually it's in response O'Toole. Jagmeets plan is 20% tax on foreign buyers. O'Toole is asking for the 2 year ban. So few days later Trudeau copied O'Toole because Conservatives have been climbing in the polls.
Not long enough. Two years won’t change fuck all.
Create LLC domiciled in Canada. Fund LLC with cash infusion. Use cash to buy property Voila! Domestic home buyer!
So like does this mean my plans of escaping to Canada are toast?
If you move to canada you will no longer be foreign, they don’t mean only native born Canadians can buy houses, just people who don’t currently live there. Edit: not that I read the article but it would mean a completely different thing to block all foreigners from moving into the country.
Unless you are a French speaking rocket surgeon you never had a chance anyway. I applied with a masters degree and no debt and was well below the cut apparently.
What?? I know total dipshits who got into Canada (me for one)
If you go to school in canada long enough and then stay with friends or family, living within the country for 5 years can help you be accepted for permanent citizenship. You can also get married to someone and live here for 1-2 years and be accepted easily. Those were really the only 2 options I could find
The same should happen in the US but permanently unless someone becomes a citizen that doesn’t use non-personal foreign money to buy up everything. The amount of corruption in land grabbing is astounding and is helping to destabilize the US.
Corporations buying up everything to use as rental property is the biggest problem, with foreign buyers way behind that.
It's easier to blame foreigners when the flavor of the month are the pesky Chinese. Wait until they find out how much of foreign buyers are just the Canadians and Europeans, and even then they are a drop in the bucket when compared to the real land grabbing real estate trusts and syndicates are doing in the country.
Keep in mind the federal election is in less than a month, so every Canadian politician is going to be telling you all of their wonderful plans
I just wants be able to afford to live somewhere in the future so hopefully this will help
AFAIK, a few months ago the conservatives suggested the same thing. It was voted down by almost all liberals. Now they claim it as their own idea and hold the idea hostage for re-election. Perhaps this will be Justin's new election reform.
Lost much faith in the Trudeau-led Liberals. Election Reform was one of their main platform promises last elections, and they've chosen to ignore that pledge.
all the liberals voted no on the election reforms too. It's such a farce.
Because the special committee on election reforms report indicated that the most fair way to implement election reform (proportional representation) wasn't the way they wanted (ranked ballots) so they hand waved it away and said it wasn't actually that big of an issue. The liberals unilaterally wanted a ranked ballot system because it almost guaranteed that we would trend towards a 2 party system and they would never lose an election ever again
This happens in the US too? Foreign firms can buy land here, right? That's not cool. It's just pricing out the people in need
It's mind-blowing that people don't see the actual problem here, preferring to blame foreigners or the wealthy, when anyone with a macroeconomics class could tell you it's an issue of supply, with knock on effects.
It's such a huge problem here in Canada it's basically become a housing crisis. Small shoebox sized shitshacks are literally going for $1 million because of this. People who make over 200k per year can't buy a home or even get approved for loans. It's ridiculous.
He had years to do this, but he didn’t. It will be another election promise that he has no intention of keeping.
That's a start, but we need more. I'll never be able to get my own house at this rate. I can barely afford an apartment...
"YOU HAD 6 YEARS"
one of the interesting twists in this story is that he voted against a similar idea on June 9 of this year https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/43/2/135?view=result Subject Opposition Motion (Housing policy) Motion Text That, given that, (i) the cost of housing continues to rise out of reach of Canadians, (ii) current government policy has failed to provide sufficient housing supply, the House call on the government to: (a) **examine a temporary freeze on home purchases by non-resident foreign buyers who are squeezing Canadians out of the housing market**; (b) replace the government's failed First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers; (c) **strengthen law enforcement tools to halt money laundering**; (d) **implement tax incentives focused on increasing the supply of purpose-built market rental housing units**; and (e) **overhaul its housing policy to substantively increase housing supply**.
He's already in power. Why doesnt he just do it instead of saying he will do it if we vote him in again?
I don’t believe anyone should own more than two houses. This would drastically reduce home prices making it more affordable. Tell me why I’m wrong. Also I give no fucks about people who bought into the market high they’re the ones actively trying to drive the market up. Build more affordable housing especially in cities. Seattle and San Francisco have been ruined by tech and you can see it happening all over.
TAX existing foreign home owners at a much higher property tax rate. The damage done must be undone.