The article by Joe Castalado at canadianbusiness.com 25 Apr 2011 is an absolute must read for anybody with even a vague interest in Vancouver RE. It is a multifaceted article, and we have/will highlight various bits and pieces of it elsewhere. It is headlined here to archive its presence in the chronology and to encourage all to take a look.
We also take the opportunity here to highlight excerpts that summarize well the renter/owner discussion:
“Canada has a long history of embracing property ownership (it was once a requirement to vote), and government policy continues to support it. “It’s a virtuous circle,” says Phil Soper, CEO of Royal LePage. “Governments have been elected over the years for putting forward policies that encourage home ownership, and people have in turn viewed it as good policy.”
Politically, it makes sense for governments to cater to homeowners, a powerful voting lobby. But part of the logic behind supporting ownership is that it’s [good] for society. The prevailing wisdom is that homeowners vote and volunteer more than renters. They’re more engaged with their communities. They’re even healthier. In short, property ownership makes better citizens.
The evidence for this is dubious. William Rohe, director of the Center for Urban and Regional Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, summarized the existing research a few years ago for a Harvard University housing journal. He found that homeowners have higher self-esteem than renters, but pointed out that the original studies may not have adequately controlled for other contributing factors. Numerous studies also show that homeowners participate more in volunteer organizations and political activities. It’s still unclear, wrote Rohe, whether ownership actually leads to this behaviour. Yet another purported benefit of ownership is that it fosters better education for children. Again, the evidence is weak. A paper in the journal Real Estate Economics published in 2008 examined much of the literature using more sophisticated analytical techniques. It found that children of American homeowners scored no better on math and reading tests than renters’ kids, nor did they have lower high-school dropout rates.
Grace Bucchianeri, a professor of real estate at the Wharton School of Business, found the societal benefits of home ownership to be similarly overblown when she examined data collected from 600 women in Ohio. She found little evidence to support the idea that owners participate in civic and community activities any more than renters, and after controlling for factors such as income, housing quality and health, she concluded that owners were no happier. In fact, they spent less time on leisure activities and socializing with friends than their renting counterparts. When you look beneath our assumptions, Bucchianeri writes in her 2009 study, “the intuitive link between home ownership and well-being breaks down.
As for the renter’s fear of losing out financially, that too is exaggerated. Today, the average home-price-to-rent ratio is at its highest level on record, which means renting may actually be more affordable than paying a mortgage. Furthermore, a 2007 study from the UBC Centre for Urban Economics and Real Estate found that over the past three decades, renters could have beat homeowners’ financial results. The study examined the theoretical returns of buying versus renting in nine Canadian cities. In four of them, renters who invested wisely could accumulate 24% more wealth than homeowners, and match it in three others.
…
Considering the inconclusive research, it might be time to rethink the degree to which governments support homeownership. David Hulchanski, an associate director of research at Cities Centre at the University of Toronto, for one, argues that our current system punishes renters. … Housing policy should stop blindly favouring ownership, Hulchanski argues. Eliminating the capital-gains tax exemption on home sales would be one way to free up some cash. “That’s billions that could be used on rental or social housing, and we rebalance the system,” he says. He knows the prospects of that are next to zero, however. “Even the NDP is silent on it.”
































Foreign property buyers restrictions needed?
CBC News
Apr 11, 2011 10:39 AM PT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/04/11/bc-vancouver-ladner-residential-restrictions.html
This story is closed to commenting. WHY IS THAT??!
I nearly had a heart attack on my way to work hearing a CBC article in the news against the housing boom in metro Van!!
thank you Peter Ladner – you are a hero for at least trying to bring it to the table.
How about we send him some emails in appreciation? (scroll down to his name/email)
http://www.sfu.ca/dialog/study+practice/associates.html
It appears you can comment now:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/04/11/bc-vancouver-ladner-residential-restrictions.html
Peter Ladner has the substance that makes a great leader.
To keep a balance archive of anecdotes reflecting our current affairs and social responsibilities, here is why “PRs” and “Canadian passports” are such a joke.
“For many of the Chinese in Vancouver, becoming Canadian was never a reason why we moved here, nor do we have the desire to do so. Rather, we see ourselves as Chinese expatriates, living in Canada for a short-term purpose, be it providing our kids to an easier education environment, setting up a business, or even just taking a long vacation.
author: Ray Lin, Richmond”
http://www.bclocalnews.com/richmond_southdelta/richmondreview/opinion/letters/118685289.html#
“If you go back to the 1980s, and the worry about Hongcouver, and all these kinds of things, Vancouver has been through this story before and I think most people think this city is better off now than it was in 1987,” said Somerville.”
hahaha NO.
they also closed the olympic village comments section – out of 68 comments nearly all of them were of the same overwhelming sentiment of disgust with the city and the developers and everything to do with the project.
i’m rather sick of CBC moderating it’s comment section – we’re old enough to think for ourselves, thanks.
If you eliminate the capital gain tax exemption, I fear it would allow home debtors to write off real estate losses. And we know big losses are coming.
The CBC editors close commenting when they suspect a story may generate comments that maybe open up CBC to controversy or legal liability. This has been in-place for sometime now; I think nytimes.com also does this (but being a non-government institution, nytimes has more leeway.
I also was speechless when I heard the commentary from Peter Ladner, a former NPA Council member no less. I suspect that many of us are now quite comfortable in our houses bought in the 80′s but look at the bleak situation that our kids are facing as they realize that they will not be staying in Vancouver unless they a) be happy in a basement suite or b) have more than one job (my son has three right now) and virutally no time or money to spend on their passions.
Why is this not an election issue?
Greed. Pure and simple. Why bother thinking about the poor children when you, yourself are a (paper) millionaire because your house is worth so much? Besides, a lot of boomer parents I know have been busy perpetuating the myth that “real estate always goes up” and encourage their kids to buy buy buy! So that one day too, they can be millionaires. And when they see their kids struggling, they say no pain, no gain. Though in reality, it would be much cheaper to rent and save, rather than struggle to pay that mortgage every month, on a property that won’t even accommodate one or two children. They’re delusional and their vision is clouded by their paper gains. It’s sad, but this too will end.
We’ll headline the CBC radio interview with Ladner once we have the transcript.