Fairbnb’s new co-op platform aims to offer short-term rentals without the destructive side effects by Kunal Chaudhary • The Breach
You can’t redistribute your way out of a shortage. Any solution to the housing crisis that doesn’t involve a shitload more housing is rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.
It’s more than just that though. Adding more housing to the market without dealing with large scale short term rentals and people hoarding investment properties will just lead to more hoarding as the people who already own property use the basically nonexistent interest rate to leverage their assets to keep buying up more profit properties.
They’ve already tackled interest, but they still need to do the rest before building more will actually help.
In the meantime, freeing up housing not currently available to homebuyers who want somewhere to live would certainly help, and would free up more long term rentals as well, which would help with the absurd prices rentals have reached.
No. The fix is to correct the issue of investors.
Punishing housing taxes of 50% of the value of the house per year for every house per family beyond the first.
Ban ownership of housing by companies and all non-permanent residents.Ban ownership of housing by companies
I like the idea, but how would that work for apartment buildings?
The individual apartment owners have a share in the complete building.
I thought building more houses required backhoes and concrete, but you do it your way and see how that works.
Great, so some renters convert into owners, but net occupancy doesn’t change, rent doesn’t go down, and the market gets worse because there’s less incentive to build more.
Then what?
If there’s less chance of people being able to make bank on housing by buying up properties to rent out short term at $500 a night then housing costs go down even if supply doesn’t go up. Those people are way more willing to pay $50k over asking than someone who will be paying the mortgage and living there full time.
This isn’t a really good take, but I keep hearing it all the time. There’s around 2.4 people per housing unit in Canada based on the latest data from Stats Canada and CMHC. That’s not really a shortage, between families and room mates it’s very easy to fit that 2.4 number into what we have available.
The “shortage” is people wanting it a) at a lower price and b) wanting larger housing than they currently have. c) wanting it in specific places that are highly desirable (specific cities)
I’m not saying it’s wrong to want larger houses or want it cheaper, but there isn’t actually a shortage of housing to meet people’s basic needs.
If someone wants to eat a steak, but can’t afford it, we don’t say there’s a shortage of beef. If someone had the money but couldn’t buy it because it wasn’t available at the grocery store or butcher, that’s an actual shortage.
It’s lower in every other G7 country.
2.4 might not sound like much, but then consider all the single people living alone. We could live in bigger groups like they do in the third world, but that’s going to be unpopular with a lot of people.
The “shortage” is people wanting it a) at a lower price and b) wanting larger housing than they currently have. c) wanting it in specific places that are highly desirable (specific cities)
Yes, yes it is. But again that’s do to low supply shifting equilibrium prices higher.
“lower in every other G7 country” Sure it’s technically lower, but I’d say that we’re pretty fucking close to our comparable countries by lifestyle. We’re 99.3% of the unit rate of the US, and 98% of the rate of the UK. We’d only need to build one more year of new units at the 2022 rate to match the UK rate.
You’re missing the point though. What we WANT and what we NEED are not the same thing.
Is there there a shortage of Mansions in West Point Grey because I’d love to live there but can’t afford it? No.
Pricing is the mechanism by which we balance WANT and NEED. If you want your own place, you can pay for it. It’s not like someone who has money can’t find a unit.
There is an underlying problem in the pricing, but it has very little to do with a shortage of houses. It has to do with wages and land value extraction.
We’d only need to build one more year of new units at the 2022 rate to match the UK rate.
That’s still a lot extra if you want to catch up in, say, a decade, but I digress.
I don’t think this is the first time I’ve encountered you pushing for the most technical sense of “shortage”, but I still don’t get why that’s the hill you want to die on. We all agree there’s an issue, whatever we call it.
There is an underlying problem in the pricing, but it has very little to do with a shortage of houses. It has to do with wages and land value extraction.
Explain, if you would. It sounds like you have your own idea about why housing prices are higher than we will culturally tolerate.
I’ll jump in and offer my (uninformed) opinion. It seems that housing is seen as more of an investment. Developers build higher end houses rather than lower income housing because the profit margins are higher. In this context, reducing the value of housing as an investment by making it harder for owning multiple properties while making it easier for people to own one house could go a long ways to settling out the cost of housing in the mid to long term simply by changing the incentives on what to build.
Short term, just getting some housing supply out of short term rentals and absentee investors hands could put some more housing on the market now.
Is it enough? I doubt it, but we can do more than one thing.
Oh, okay, so the “empty houses in Vancouver” idea. Now, I’m also uninformed about the ins and outs of landlording, but it sounds like you make a decent amount being a slumlord with maximally many tenants, too.
I can, at least, attest that investments usually have their own economic logic, and there’s no free lunch there either. If you want to make a lot of money from an investment, you either come in with a big sum of money to start with, or you need to get lottery-winner lucky. That’s why I was a bit skeptical about that explanation from the start, and why the physical lack of supply explanation seems like the simplest one now.
I think the “empty houses” isn’t all or nothing. A house used for an AirBNB results in empty hotel rooms, and is “less full” than a rental that is rented for the whole month. Likewise a large house, with a single occupant is less full than an apartment building on the same land with even a 50% occupancy rate. This is the whole “missing middle density” comes in.
My impression is that developers would rather buy a bunch of land, throw up some upper scale housing, sell it, and move on. You are right that building an apartment building and renting it out is also a viable investment strategy, but it just seems that there are more developers selling houses than landlords building apartment buildings. Granted landlords kind of suck to, so condo’s would be better I would think, but what do I know?
The shortage is investors hoarding.
Investors rent their units out. If there were too many investors, rents would crash because of a supply glut.
The reason investors exist is because there’s a shortage. Things that are plentiful don’t get people hoarding them.
Explain your reasoning to mulriple people I know renting a single room or a basement while the entire rest of house is empty due to the foreign owner moving back to thier country after adding a single person to get around vacancy law. one friend hasn’t seen their owner in over 3 years. 3500 sq ft home empty. There are tons of these that drive housing scarcity and can’t go above 2.4
There aren’t as many as you think, and it’s a small number in the scale of the Canadian housing market.
Remember, the residential ownership rate in Canada is still above 65%. Dedicated rental units add another 20-25% to that, then theres a bunch of smaller scale concepts that use up the remainder like multiple ownerships, vacation homes, etc.
I agree that the absent foreign owners need to be pressured out, they aren’t helping, and my proposal to fix the housing situation does that as a side effect anyways. It’s just not a big enough problem to move the needle compared to the actual problem.
Until we reign in land values appreciating, housing prices can’t go down. Land values will not go down by zoning for more units, they actually go up when you do that.
Residential ownership at 65% includes people that buy a house and don’t move in, but claim it is occupied. there is one across the street. Sold last year, nobody moved in weeds have grown through the porch boards. when trying to rent, many of the properties were foreign owned and manager said owner never comes here so you can rent as long as you like. However they wanted extra non legal terms like we would be responsible for house repairs etc. manager stated owner didnt care if it was rented or not. Had sat empty for more than six months…with no income. The owners are rich enough to just sit on properties. This happens more than you think, especially in Vanvouver.
Yes and no. They can only claim one residence, and they have to be PR status.
Vancouver(metro)is not the only part of Canada, it’s only about 6% of the total units in the country.
Everyone claims they know a home that’s empty, but they also know a few hundred that are occupied. They can’t see the percentage is very low because of mental bias.
The residency rule is new. it will help, but you realize people lie right? A friend of mine knows a foreign owner, they own 4 places, they just put random family names on paperwork. They take actions to look like they want to fill with tennants, but they absolutely don’t care if it stays empty, because the goal ia not a supporting income. i was renting a townhome via property manager, we had an issue that needed owner consent, and strata waa getting extremely frustrated that the properry manager could not provide service address or phone number of the owner. it is a absolute shit show in BC.
If these liars make up a large enough percentage of the market that they would actually impact housing prices, then why is there absolutely no data on them.
The government and other bodies estimate black market, underreporting, and unreported stats all the time. Everything from drugs through to illegal guns gets tracked. There’s absolutely nothing on this though.
I don’t have a problem with cracking down on these people, go right ahead, but the high cost of housing/land isn’t a Canada only problem and is happening even in countries with little to no immigration or foreign ownership. That by itself should tell you that the primary factor is something else.
It’s a very nice scapegoat. Go ahead and kill it and then tell me housing prices are affordable again, I’ll be waiting. Luckily I bought my own house already, so that I can make a huge profit while these policies all fail. The government has no intention of actually fixing this, because the actual fix would upset too many voters (by devaluing their homes)
TL;DR- hosts must prove that the property for rent is their primary residence, and 50% of service fees go into community land trusts to support affordable housing.
I’d certainly support it over the other guys if it’s available in my travel destinations.
without the destructive side effects by Kunal Chaudhary
We’re blaming it all on one person now?
Because AirBnB already destroyed it
Land trusts are such an interesting concept and I do hope that they succeed. That said it sucks that it has to come to this and that the government doesnt do more in order to curb affordability crisis. The failure of pruit igo and other housing projects echoes all over north america and is used as proof that public housing is a failure while ignoring the many many other factors that went into making these projects a failure.(from poor maintenance, out of place high density, intentionally kneecapped funding structure, and of course just the bad timing of subsidized suburban sprawl hollowing out cities in general). But land trusts are at least something to help compete with developers and put downward pressures on real estate pricing.
Regarding airBnB though I feel like the impact on housing prices is over stated. The units that exist really only number in the thousands, and while it is awful there are some scumbag landlords who use it as a way to do short-term rentals without the rental protections, when it comes to housing in major cities like Toronto or NYC this is a drop in the bucket. The issue, especially in torronto is lack of public competing at more affordable prices, and the poor zoning options that mean that a stones throw from a street of high rises is a single family home neighborhood.
If there was more generous density zoning then toronto could become a lot more dense while also spreading things out a little. It wouldnt need a street of high rises because low rises and mid rises in more places would be cheaper to build, more humane in scale, and also be more dense.
Most importantly an issue that plagues north american cities that isnt addressed is the density of its suburbs. There is high demand for urban living within metro areas, but urban density falls off a cliff. So people who want that lifestyle only have one choice and it’s to go into the city. If suburbs were more urban, more able to house people, and not just decentralized single family homes around stroads then we’d have a lot of pressure relief from the city itself.
And the craziest thing is that density doesnt mean high rises. It doesnt mean tall buildings and heavy traffic, and low green space. Just across the border in the buffalo metro area there is the suburb of kenmore ny which has a pop density of 4,088.77/km2 compared to Toronto’s 4,427.8/km2 . Look at this place: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SeGrD7t5ytxcZQsa7
It’s a lot of single family homes, some commercial drags with the major village center being on delaware with low rise units, and split houses(two flats) distributed throughout the village. This is the thing that is most frustrating about nimby anti-density proponents. You can still have a nice sfh, with some land to bbq, parks neaby, a driveway to park your car in, and all that other expected nonsense and have density. The character of your neighborhood doesnt have to turn into midtown manhattan in order to become more dense.
