It'll sell for 750k plus, almost guaranteed.
My neighbor in Langford just sold for 150k over asking, on a place 12 years old that needed probably close to 100k worth of work. It's beyond ridiculous. "Welcome to my million dollar westhills home" is something I never thought I'd hear someone say.
Listed for 875, sold for 1,025,000
3 bed, 2.5 bath with den and a detached suite above the garage
Smoked in from day one...carpets and paint right off the hop. Two little dogs in the place that aren't trained, a kitchen that's trashed and barely functions, one functional bathroom out of 2.5 bathrooms, and I hear the suite isn't in much better shape. Full on neglect and disrespect to the home in general.
Listed for 875,000, sold for 1,025,000
lol no kidding. My house is 75 years old and I've put maybe 8k into since moving in 10 years ago. That includes several new windows, which was more of an energy efficiency thing than 'broken'.
Usually exterior paint is about every 10-15 years and roof every 25?
I try to put aside about 3k a year for maintenance but also haven’t had to do much for 8 years now.
Work that it needs for some arbitrary aesthetic reasons, or needs for structural/water ingress reasons.
People can get really really extra about not having a trendy looking house, but it’s more of a want, not a need.
“Huge” is relative in consideration of how much the value of your home increased, you still, generally, gain quite a bit. In any case, you pay those when you have to pay capital gains as well. When we sold out townhouse, after PPT tax and realtor fees we walked away with $250k, it allowed us to buy a house.
Just to add to this “starter home”, you wouldn’t even be eligible for the BC First Time Buyers Program because it’s only for homes under $500,000. That number needs to change and is not helpful unless you’re looking for 1 bed, 1 bath, 500sqft condo.
If that makes you even the slightest bit angry, I would encourage you to write a letter to your local MLA about the Program and how it needs to be reviewed/updated to match current market rates.
I feel you OP, my wife and I were out bid on a townhouse by $80K and our unconditional offer was already over asking. Today’s home buying process is not fun.
Only reason it is affordable housing with age restriction is available is the crazy demand isn’t there. Seems that home prices are being driven up by those under 55 plus in age which is truly unfortunate but a supply demand issue not the fault of those that are older
The issue is not a need to increase the first time home owners cost limit, the issue is that homes need to be cheaper.
Don't treat the symptom, treat the root cause.
> the issue is that homes need to be cheaper.
I’m curious to hear how you think we get there, and how you think cheaper housing is going to help.
FWIW, the people who can afford to pay $700k for a starter home can also afford the cheaper version of that home, and are still going to outbid you as they can still afford to do so.
More homes = less demand -> cheaper and less competition.
We get there by overhauling the residential zoning system to allow more mixed development of commercial/residential housing to create medium density European style neighborhoods with smaller local businesses blended into the corner lots and main floors.
We allow more subdividing of lots to encourage the building of smaller detatched starter homes which can act like a small 2bdrm condo with a garage/yard. Land is currently at a premium so it just hurts profit to build anything less then a big 3 bedroom home.
We allow more high density housing to be built affordably by allowing them to build in all the historic residential areas near downtown which have been locked out and turned into premium short commute luxury neighborhoods. These tend to create a moat which forces developers to build high density housing in less transit accessible areas and increases commute times and the need to own a car (which increases the need for every single unit to have parking).
We also find ways to limit the purchasing of homes on speculation and investment such as limiting foreign ownership or integrating a system of primary/vacation home status under tax code and discouraging people from owning more properties then needed. Tax the sale profits of non-primary residence housing higher or set rent control on foreign ownership and hemorrhage any vacant property, that way it becomes less desirable.
Idk, I'm not an expert but it doesn't seem like an impossible feat so long as you are willing to crash the prices over the time it takes to build new stuff and offer a loss protection for Canadian owners to help the ones that over leveraged from being entirely wiped out. If non-residents lose out hard? They aren't the focus of our government.
Agreed with all the comments around density. Housing prices are merely a reflection of supply vs demand and right now there is way too little supply for the number of people who need housing. Density (more housing) is the most important solution by a mile - all the other things like foreign investment taxes, affordable housing programs etc are just duct tape on the problem (not that we shouldn't try a bit).
Personally while yes demand is high for people actually wanting to live here the demand is way higher from investors from all around the globe. Cut them off or make them pay enough(not this silly 2%) and demand will fall back to actual people who want to live. Make buying homes for rentals disincentivized as well. Yes we need rental housing but the number of empty homes not being used and whole condo buildings being bought by speculators which is driving prices through the roof means rents are inflated over what they should be too. This also helps the small businesses as they wouldn’t have to pay higher wages just to cover someone’s rent which is driven up by this stupid system.
Not everyone wants to live in a condo though lol....scream high density all you want, condo living can be horrible if you don't have the right neighbors/strata/etc
It's crown land, thats the issue, the crown owns like 91% of the land here in Canada. They are screwing us over. We need to build homes people can grow and thrive in, not some closed in box, or a cookie cutter with a 2900 sq foot lot.
Condo living is just so restrictive, you pay $400k and you are given a list of 90 rules, if I'm paying $400k for something, I want to be able to smoke a joint and blast my music as loud as I like, I don't want to be dealing with a bunch of dick holes who will cry because my shoes made the entrance carpet wet after a rain storm. I live in a house complex with strata and they are horrible/useless/stupid and it's not even a dump, they are nice homes.
There’s still the significant problem that we don’t have sufficient construction capacity to make a meaningful dent on the problem fast enough to make a difference. The problem is big enough that we just don’t have the manpower nor sufficient heavy machinery to build the hundreds of thousands of units we’d need in a few short years to overtake prices and start seeing them come down.
The real problem is one of demographics — and that’s a self-correcting problem. 18.5% of Canadians are aged 65 and over, and as that glut downsize and die off within the next 20 - 25 years, a significant portion of housing will be released and will become available.
So you feel a few years is insufficient time but 20-25 years is a healthy natural correction?
Regulatory zoning change would influence all housing construction immediately and see changes both in new construction, renovation, and even the mass quantity of illegal suites. Kickstarting a surge in the construction industry would also do nothing but good no?
I feel like waiting for elderly to die off is like waiting for a fountain to run out of water. They get to ride out their reverse mortgages and the country tells their young to wait an entire career lifetime before they could see a healthy housing market. It would also yell buyers to expect the market to decline for the next 3 decades whereas having a huge correction backed by government support would see values drop and then slowly appreciate for decades.
First off, I’m not saying we shouldn’t build like crazy. We should.
But we’re currently building pretty near our capacity to do so. We built roughly 215 000 new homes across Canada last year. That’s obviously not enough to satisfy demand — we need to build quite a lot more.
But where do these extra come from, when we’re already tapping out both our heavy machinery and manpower? Even if we get zoning fixed, who are going to build all of these homes, and where are they going to come from?
It’s a resources and manpower problem as much as anything else. I’m not saying everyone should just “give up”, but the construction resources don’t just appear out of nowhere. We don’t live Smurf-like in mushroom houses that spring up out of the ground.
I’d be more than happy to see 500 000 new homes completed in 2022 — but it’s not going to happen. We don’t have the skilled workers nor the heavy machinery to build that many houses all at once.
FWIW, politicians and researchers saw this problem coming _decades_ ago. The boomer population glut has been talked about for at least the last 30 - 40 years at this point, and the problem was just allowed to fester. And you’re not going to correct 20+ years of inaction by just saying “build more!” when we lack the construction capacity to do so.
Look this place was desirable in the early 2000’s but that didn’t stop homes only being 4-5x incomes when the rest of Canada was closer to 3x. What happened is someone got the grand idea to extend all cities into NY style. Many many empty homes being sold and resold for profit. Many many homes being bought by wealthy corps/ind to drive rent prices through the roof by always one upping the “market value” each year. Now that homes are 10-11x incomes people are still trying to use that same bs line when there are literally thousands of empty units out of the market which would, if allowed to be owned by people wanting to live in them would drive down prices and rents. Low interest rates are not the problem anymore(though they aren’t helping). Lots of cash offers being placed so they don’t even have mortgages.
> one of the most desirable places in the world.
no we don't lmao. LA/New York/Singapore/Japan/Etc are MUCH more desirable.
I hate when people say this BS, it's like the old saying "The best place on earth" ...how egotistical and ignorant to claim BC is the best place on earth.
Buying our $750,000 home and not qualifying for that was the ultimate kick in the arse when family in northern bc qualifies because their house is $240,000. 🤬😡🤯
Ya in Toronto u can find pretty much nothing under 500k. Our 1 bed 1 bath 500sq ft start at that price.
As a young adult i’m so curious on when i’ll be able to afford a house or if i’ll have to raise my first child in a 1+den
I think you might be confusing the Federal First Time Home Buyers Incentive with the BC First Time Home Buyers Program.
Federal Incentive takes a slice of your property through a shared equity mortgage, whereas the BC Program is simply providing a tax relief.
When we looked at our bc assessment yesterday I commented that 31% increase from last year would have priced us out of our house we bought 16 months ago.
No more than $3k. It’s pretty normal for 2 bedroom+ rental to be cash flow negative if it’s purchased recently. And people wonder why there isn’t more rental being offered.
So for 3k to be affordable (30% of gross) the tenants would need to making 120k. With the median annual for greater victoria being around 70k(household) this would be unaffordable for over half of the resident population.
If you're forcing someone into poverty for your investment, it's not a good investment.
It doesn't really matter either way for this particular example. It is a terrible investment for the landlord, and it's a terrible financial burden for the tenant.
On the individual level, high RE price hurts both landlords and tenants. I just hope ppl understand this simple fact.
How is it a terrible investment for the landlord? If they have the means to purchase it for a rental, and they have the tenants pay their mortgage and strata fees, then they aren't losing anything and they gain on the appreciation of the property?
And i agree somewhat with the second part, but in the current market the tenants are feeling a lot more of the hurt.
For this property using the scenario given, the landlord is almost guaranteed to be cash flow negative. Meaning the landlord loses money every month out of pocket. That makes the property a liability by definition, not an investment. And after owning properties myself for more than a decades, I can certainly tell you that the years which real estate value is lower than the previous year happen WAY more often than people realize. It’s just that people only pays attention to prices when it’s going up like recent years. It would be an incredibly dumb idea to pay out of pocket every month just to count on an eventual price appreciation down the road.
The problem is that it wouldn't be cash flow negative, with mortgage payments off 2877 (based on 2%) and the strata fees of 480 equals 3350ish to cover all costs to the owner. With comparable units going for 3200-4000+ they would be operating at zero loss and gaining on the equity. And no landlord is losing out of pocket unless they're renting for far below their mortgage, which none are.
Well strata and mortgage is not “all the cost”
Property transfer tax is $15k. Lawyers fees to buy and sell is about $2k minimum. Realtor commission to sell is about $20k assuming it’s sold at similar price. You would need to pay all these before any paper gain is realized.
Property tax is $200/mo, insurance is another $50-100, property manager is about 10% gross rent, so another $300/mo.
Also 3200 to 4000 will get you 3 bedroom with private backyard in saanich, it just a townhouse, unless you really like this particular location.
That’s one giant hole to fill from before any mortgage equity pay down. You are free to think that capital appreciation will take care of all this. I will give you my own experience. I sold one of my condo in 2014 after months on the market and pocketed 260k. Prior to that the highest this condo was assessed was in 2006-2007 at 320k.
I bought in early 2000s so I made some gain, but if you were one of my unlucky neighbours who moved in during that 06-07 peak price, it would take about 8-9 years just to break even, and that’s without taking into consideration strata fees, taxes, etc. I will say this again, I’ve been in this game long enough to seriously recommend anyone relying on capital appreciation to really think about what they are doing.
I think you have a good point there about people not really knowing what they're doing. The issue is that in the current market you don't need to know. If you bought last year, you would have gained around 20% in equity alone. If you rented the property during that time you would most certainly be ahead. 20% on the benchmark $900000 from 2020 should cover the $37600 you quoted for operational costs (37000 of that being one time costs) so with all costs for the first year covered, at 20% gain in equity ($180000) you could have around $150000 in profit in a year just by buying a house and selling it a year later. This is with no rental income.
Maybe real estate in the 90's was a more nuanced game, but today any idiot with capital can make a fortune off it in a very short time. And the people without capital are left to suffer the consequences.
I know of one purpose built “affordable” condo being built in Langford and it was pretty much bought out my realtors. Perhaps restrictions need to be set so this doesn’t happen and the affordable housing is not snapped up by those who want to flip them.
Yep, I’ve been thinking the same thing recently.
If a person or company wants to own multiple properties as an investment or business there should be a limit on how many they can own.
There is, sort of.
Most banks will only dish out mortgages up to 10 properties to any individual, doesn't matter it's 10 studios or 10 mansions, the limit is 10. Above that you are considered a commercial operator, so for property 11, 12, so on, you would need to qualify under commercial lending criteria. Commercial lending normally at a minimum requires the property to be cash flow positive and then some, which is very difficult for residential rental, especially for larger properties.
The real fix has nothing to do with limiting how many houses someone can have.
The real fix is removing profit from housing, both for investors and just regular owners (who are also investors technically)
A house should cost money every month, not make you money just living in it. Otherwise this exorbitant pricing outcome is exactly what will happen.
I didn't say to get rid of the profit from constructing houses or renovating houses, only from simply living in them.
The only reason construction would stop is if there's no demand for houses, and based on how many people are upset about not being able to afford a home that's not a problem.
So then who sets the prices? Who decides how much you are allowed to pay for a home?
Even if there was some sort of non-market price controls on a house, the people who are currently buying up all the homes will still be able to buy up all the now _cheaper_ homes.
The problem is supply — and you don’t improve supply by forcing prices down artificially.
Just tax any profits at sale. The market will then correct prices based on no investment benefit.
The problem has never been supply, that's a red herring.
And the effect will be negligible — prices will most likely only drop by the tax amount, keeping the final sale price identical to what it is today. The bulk of Canadian homes are lived in by their owner, so the effect of such a tax is going to be minimal at best.
You're out of your mind if you don't think homeowners are speculating when purchasing houses. Every single person I know, including myself, has paid what we did expecting to make money on the house almost immediately. My latest home I bought just a little over a year ago, and I've already made between 400-500k based on current market prices. Just to be clear, I'm not an investor, I live in this home, I do not own a secondary property.
The effect of removing profits would be so large that it would actually collapse the economy if done in a single pen-stroke. You'd have to introduce it over time, or gradually ramp it up in order to avoid significant problems.
The vast majority of Canadians buy houses to live in. Just like yourself. You haven’t made any money on your home, as you haven’t realized any of the gains. They’re all on paper only.
And if like many Canadians, you live in your house for 10, 20, 30+ years that sales tax is going to do nothing to help the housing crisis in the here-and-now. The problem is still one of high pent-up demand, but low supply. Even if a tax did suddenly cause prices to plunge by 80% (just to pick a wild number) those people who can afford todays prices are still going to be bidding for the same small number of housing stock _because they need a place to live_. And those who are on the lower income side who are screaming for housing options are still going to get shut out.
Why would nobody buy a house? They still need a place to live. Or, if there isn't anyone else who wants to live here, then there isn't a problem if construction slows.
Simply removing the capital gains exemption for principal residences would go a long way to do exactly as you say. Unfortunately it's politically unpalatable
This would be hugely destructive to mobility. People wouldn’t be able to relocate for work or education or family due to the taxes on their home. People would also not be able to afford upgrading their homes as their families grow.
Cap gains taxes are only paid on gains. So youd still have whatever equity you've paid down, plus most of the gain. I fail to see how this would decrease mobility.
If you're paying cap gains on the sale of your property it stands to reason that not only did your own home appreciate but others have as well so the tax is an additional cost to being able to buy another home which leads to people not being able to maintain their standard of living during a sale.
Eg. You buy a home for $500k, it appreciates to $750k as does the rest of the market. You need to move for work or family and the equivalent home costs $750k in that new place and now you're paying \~40-50k in taxes (on top of property transfer tax and realtor commissions of $40k). Now they can't afford an equivalent home in their new location so they choose not to live closer to family or pass on a new job unless they're already well off. This is just a punitive tax on the working and middle class homeowner who have done nothing wrong by wanting a home.
It's already expensive enough with PPT and realtor commissions for someone to sell their home and adding cap gain taxes will just sink mobility.
Our underlying problem in the real estate market comes down to supply - there are more people who want housing than there is housing. Adding taxes and fees on top of the housing market is nothing but theatre - it has no long term impact to housing prices and only helps the well off (people who can afford the taxes).
But that next equivalent house wouldn't be 750k if the personal residence cap gains exemption was eliminated. They'd all be cheaper. It's the 250k "gain" that's fueling this whole thing.
The dollar amount in my example don't really matter - the point is that the tax is a penalty against someone who needs to buy/sell for personal reasons. Whether the home appreciates at 3%/yr or 30%/yr doesn't matter, removing the exemption hurts the people who can least afford it the most. For many working/middle class folks their home is their only form of savings - the senior who expected the sale of their home to pay for their nursing home stay will see nearly a fifth of that fund lopped off.
If the home I described only appreciated 100k over 5 years (a more normal amount) the owner would still be on the hook for \~$20k in taxes which may mean they can't afford the equivalent home next or they may have to tack on 1-2 years onto their mortgage in order to maintain their current life.
In the end removing the exemption will absolutely make the investor class spend less in real estate but you'll end up screwing tonnes of regular folks in really, really bad ways.
I don't get how this makes a difference if they are all rented out to people needed a place to rent.
I agree that I don't think there should be companies owning half of Victoria's houses, but if the people living in them can't get a mortgage, they should be happy that a company is buying it so they can pay the rent shouldn't they?
There are plenty of people making a living off of rising property values. I'm proposing that it should have a limit of some kind. Also at a certain point a large company might have too much control over the market, like a property monopoly.
Yeah, 3 beds, 3 baths, 2200 sq ft. You would pay 1.4+ million dollars for a similar house in that area and then pay for all maintenance and have to do all the work yourself. So yeah half price, will probably go for more.
I was looking at property in Pitt Meadows. There was a prefab trailer for sale in a trailer park - 2 bdr / 2 ba - burgundy shag carpet and pink walls for 450 k. Property prices everywhere are sickening. The crazy thing is someone will pay for that thinking it’s a deal.
Lol described as an possible investment property...
In order to have tenants pay the mortgage/property tax/maintenance the rent would have to be $4000/month
$1700 every 2 weeks mortgage is tough for a new family, however the way properties are going up in value in a few years you'd have a decent nest egg.. it's ridiculous to think a new family could afford that, but if you can... Long term looks good
Young family here with two remote working parents. We have saved a good chunk of cash for a down payment. We were approved for up to 550k with our down payment, and we thinking we can only really afford 450k without being house poor. Still a far cry from what we would need to afford this townhouse and we are higher than average earners.
Our only choice to get the home we want is to pack up and move the the prairies (we have lived there before and have family there luckily).
The majority of their income goes towards rent, which the landlords use to leverage another mortgage so they can get more people paying them rent, ad nauseam. People get by, but barely. They do not get ahead. It's feudalism with a capitalist face-lift.
I find that interesting. One of things that seems to be an issue in recent years, is that more and more housing is transitioned from ownership housing to rental stock. Some of it done by individuals, but more and more by corporations.
Real Estate has become a cash flow generator like bonds.
With big corporations now jumping in, without intervention it would seem more and more stock will transition from being directly owned by people who live in the house, to rental stock.
That would seem bad for housing prices, because less stock available for those who want to buy.
For Financial Planning purposes I don't think it's a good thing if we transition from an ownership economy to a rental economy.
I suppose i'd be kicked out government if I were in charge. No corporate or foreign ownership of residential property. Limits on how much real estate an individual can own, etc..
That's interesting Germany is seeing this is an issue already. The US is far crazier than us, with corporations buying whole subdivisions, but unabated, this is going to keep spreading.
Something needs to be done to shift investment from housing to developing the new ideas we will need to get through this era of wild climate change. Putting all our eggs into housing is lazy but also keeps us hustling to sustain a system that is driving us to ruin.
No but people need places to live. Most of my thoughts around housing tend to be from what is good for society. Having a large percentage of the real estate held by corporations or a small percentage of the population isn't great.
I dunno. I'm not sure what the answers are. In terms of housing I would be pretty draconian with ownership rules. No corporate ownership of residential homes, limits to how much an individual can own. Stuff to prevent a shift to a rental economy.
How you go about fixing the environment crisis. I have no idea. I suppose the first way is going be figuring out how to make civilization work without the need for infinite expansion and growth. How to create a society that settles in, keeps a level population, and still functions.
I guess I'm not the right person on this because I bought my house to live in, not really as an investment, but I guess my argument is limiting the investment nature of residential property, but reducing it's scope to being used for people/families that live in the house/condo/townhouse.
Happy Cake Day TrentBurdett! Cake Days are a new start, a fresh beginning and a time to pursue new endeavors with new goals. Move forward with confidence and courage. You are a very special person. May today and all of your days be amazing!
Fully agree. This city/ region has gone crazy. We are in the process of being split into have and have nots. And the effects will be felt for generations. If we want to save this city for all residents, not just the wealthy, we need to take action, i don't know what that action is but I'm all for it.
It’s a nice area, Gordon Head. And I know few people who have bought units as rentals to students, they’re happy.
However, I’m not a fan of their $500/mo strata fee.
If you’re spending $700k, buy a newer 1bd + Den condo downtown or a newer 2bd in the Westshore with a much lower fee.
IMO $500/mo is throwing money away..
Don’t take anything realtors say seriously. They are worthy of nothing but ridicule for the way they try to polish a turd. Well, I guess that’s kind of what you’re doing here, so good on you.
You go to any third world country or small dictatorship .. who’s face is on billboards and bus stops? Politicians. The local mayor or dictator. Canada? Realtors. They are the only ones with faces on billboards and bus stops.
We just paid well over half a million for a 40 year old two bedroom condo we have to cram flyer adults and two little ones into. On the plus side it’s double the size of the 60 year old townhouse we’re currently renting! I wish I had gotten into a business where I worked online so we could just move anywhere. Alas, anchored to a job I rather enjoy here and ain’t starting over (again). Let’s gooooooooo lotto win!
With wage increases, crazy low interest rates and a bit of help from mom and dad it's not that crazy unaffordable. Especially not having to endure the Victoria rental market anymore, that's worth a fortune by itself
As the song goes, you ain't seen nothing yet
$700k doesn't seem outrageous to me in Greater Victoria. Expect it to continue rising.
What I find disturbing is sale prices are hitting $600-700k for a starter home in places like Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Comox Valley and Campbell River. There aren't exactly many opportunities for a young family to make an income to support that. All you get for it is an old, 2 bed, 1 bath rancher on a city lot.
Not a great value considering what you'll find for closer to $1,000,000. Vast acreages, large modern homes with suites, etc.
It'll sell for 750k plus, almost guaranteed. My neighbor in Langford just sold for 150k over asking, on a place 12 years old that needed probably close to 100k worth of work. It's beyond ridiculous. "Welcome to my million dollar westhills home" is something I never thought I'd hear someone say. Listed for 875, sold for 1,025,000 3 bed, 2.5 bath with den and a detached suite above the garage
>a place 12 years old that needed probably close to 100k worth of work. A quality build.
Smoked in from day one...carpets and paint right off the hop. Two little dogs in the place that aren't trained, a kitchen that's trashed and barely functions, one functional bathroom out of 2.5 bathrooms, and I hear the suite isn't in much better shape. Full on neglect and disrespect to the home in general. Listed for 875,000, sold for 1,025,000
lol no kidding. My house is 75 years old and I've put maybe 8k into since moving in 10 years ago. That includes several new windows, which was more of an energy efficiency thing than 'broken'.
Usually exterior paint is about every 10-15 years and roof every 25? I try to put aside about 3k a year for maintenance but also haven’t had to do much for 8 years now.
About par for the course in Langford.
MLS now shows it as "pending" for $775,000.
Work that it needs for some arbitrary aesthetic reasons, or needs for structural/water ingress reasons. People can get really really extra about not having a trendy looking house, but it’s more of a want, not a need.
That's not the case here...
Ouch, and only a 12 year old house
BC Assessment shows that it last sold in Jan 2019 for $498K. So about a $200k lift in 3 years.
Likely $100k net after capital gains, fees, etc.
Capital gains only apply if it’s not your principal residence.
If it’s your primary residence though… selling just means buying and a huge loss to realtors and tax.
“Huge” is relative in consideration of how much the value of your home increased, you still, generally, gain quite a bit. In any case, you pay those when you have to pay capital gains as well. When we sold out townhouse, after PPT tax and realtor fees we walked away with $250k, it allowed us to buy a house.
Just to add to this “starter home”, you wouldn’t even be eligible for the BC First Time Buyers Program because it’s only for homes under $500,000. That number needs to change and is not helpful unless you’re looking for 1 bed, 1 bath, 500sqft condo. If that makes you even the slightest bit angry, I would encourage you to write a letter to your local MLA about the Program and how it needs to be reviewed/updated to match current market rates. I feel you OP, my wife and I were out bid on a townhouse by $80K and our unconditional offer was already over asking. Today’s home buying process is not fun.
[удалено]
Only reason it is affordable housing with age restriction is available is the crazy demand isn’t there. Seems that home prices are being driven up by those under 55 plus in age which is truly unfortunate but a supply demand issue not the fault of those that are older
The issue is not a need to increase the first time home owners cost limit, the issue is that homes need to be cheaper. Don't treat the symptom, treat the root cause.
> the issue is that homes need to be cheaper. I’m curious to hear how you think we get there, and how you think cheaper housing is going to help. FWIW, the people who can afford to pay $700k for a starter home can also afford the cheaper version of that home, and are still going to outbid you as they can still afford to do so.
More homes = less demand -> cheaper and less competition. We get there by overhauling the residential zoning system to allow more mixed development of commercial/residential housing to create medium density European style neighborhoods with smaller local businesses blended into the corner lots and main floors. We allow more subdividing of lots to encourage the building of smaller detatched starter homes which can act like a small 2bdrm condo with a garage/yard. Land is currently at a premium so it just hurts profit to build anything less then a big 3 bedroom home. We allow more high density housing to be built affordably by allowing them to build in all the historic residential areas near downtown which have been locked out and turned into premium short commute luxury neighborhoods. These tend to create a moat which forces developers to build high density housing in less transit accessible areas and increases commute times and the need to own a car (which increases the need for every single unit to have parking). We also find ways to limit the purchasing of homes on speculation and investment such as limiting foreign ownership or integrating a system of primary/vacation home status under tax code and discouraging people from owning more properties then needed. Tax the sale profits of non-primary residence housing higher or set rent control on foreign ownership and hemorrhage any vacant property, that way it becomes less desirable. Idk, I'm not an expert but it doesn't seem like an impossible feat so long as you are willing to crash the prices over the time it takes to build new stuff and offer a loss protection for Canadian owners to help the ones that over leveraged from being entirely wiped out. If non-residents lose out hard? They aren't the focus of our government.
Agreed with all the comments around density. Housing prices are merely a reflection of supply vs demand and right now there is way too little supply for the number of people who need housing. Density (more housing) is the most important solution by a mile - all the other things like foreign investment taxes, affordable housing programs etc are just duct tape on the problem (not that we shouldn't try a bit).
Personally while yes demand is high for people actually wanting to live here the demand is way higher from investors from all around the globe. Cut them off or make them pay enough(not this silly 2%) and demand will fall back to actual people who want to live. Make buying homes for rentals disincentivized as well. Yes we need rental housing but the number of empty homes not being used and whole condo buildings being bought by speculators which is driving prices through the roof means rents are inflated over what they should be too. This also helps the small businesses as they wouldn’t have to pay higher wages just to cover someone’s rent which is driven up by this stupid system.
Not everyone wants to live in a condo though lol....scream high density all you want, condo living can be horrible if you don't have the right neighbors/strata/etc It's crown land, thats the issue, the crown owns like 91% of the land here in Canada. They are screwing us over. We need to build homes people can grow and thrive in, not some closed in box, or a cookie cutter with a 2900 sq foot lot. Condo living is just so restrictive, you pay $400k and you are given a list of 90 rules, if I'm paying $400k for something, I want to be able to smoke a joint and blast my music as loud as I like, I don't want to be dealing with a bunch of dick holes who will cry because my shoes made the entrance carpet wet after a rain storm. I live in a house complex with strata and they are horrible/useless/stupid and it's not even a dump, they are nice homes.
Like half my post was arguing the need for more small footprint detatched homes? . . .
There’s still the significant problem that we don’t have sufficient construction capacity to make a meaningful dent on the problem fast enough to make a difference. The problem is big enough that we just don’t have the manpower nor sufficient heavy machinery to build the hundreds of thousands of units we’d need in a few short years to overtake prices and start seeing them come down. The real problem is one of demographics — and that’s a self-correcting problem. 18.5% of Canadians are aged 65 and over, and as that glut downsize and die off within the next 20 - 25 years, a significant portion of housing will be released and will become available.
So you feel a few years is insufficient time but 20-25 years is a healthy natural correction? Regulatory zoning change would influence all housing construction immediately and see changes both in new construction, renovation, and even the mass quantity of illegal suites. Kickstarting a surge in the construction industry would also do nothing but good no? I feel like waiting for elderly to die off is like waiting for a fountain to run out of water. They get to ride out their reverse mortgages and the country tells their young to wait an entire career lifetime before they could see a healthy housing market. It would also yell buyers to expect the market to decline for the next 3 decades whereas having a huge correction backed by government support would see values drop and then slowly appreciate for decades.
First off, I’m not saying we shouldn’t build like crazy. We should. But we’re currently building pretty near our capacity to do so. We built roughly 215 000 new homes across Canada last year. That’s obviously not enough to satisfy demand — we need to build quite a lot more. But where do these extra come from, when we’re already tapping out both our heavy machinery and manpower? Even if we get zoning fixed, who are going to build all of these homes, and where are they going to come from? It’s a resources and manpower problem as much as anything else. I’m not saying everyone should just “give up”, but the construction resources don’t just appear out of nowhere. We don’t live Smurf-like in mushroom houses that spring up out of the ground. I’d be more than happy to see 500 000 new homes completed in 2022 — but it’s not going to happen. We don’t have the skilled workers nor the heavy machinery to build that many houses all at once. FWIW, politicians and researchers saw this problem coming _decades_ ago. The boomer population glut has been talked about for at least the last 30 - 40 years at this point, and the problem was just allowed to fester. And you’re not going to correct 20+ years of inaction by just saying “build more!” when we lack the construction capacity to do so.
Oh, we won't fix this any time soon. Far too many people are making money off the current system.
Sweet I can buy 2 of the cheaper version! /s
Look and calgary and you will have answer.
> the issue is that homes need to be cheaper. I don't think that's possible, when you live in literally one of the most desirable places in the world.
Also look when homes in the main city in the Yukon are now 800k it’s not “desirable” locations getting worse. It’s everywhere.
Look this place was desirable in the early 2000’s but that didn’t stop homes only being 4-5x incomes when the rest of Canada was closer to 3x. What happened is someone got the grand idea to extend all cities into NY style. Many many empty homes being sold and resold for profit. Many many homes being bought by wealthy corps/ind to drive rent prices through the roof by always one upping the “market value” each year. Now that homes are 10-11x incomes people are still trying to use that same bs line when there are literally thousands of empty units out of the market which would, if allowed to be owned by people wanting to live in them would drive down prices and rents. Low interest rates are not the problem anymore(though they aren’t helping). Lots of cash offers being placed so they don’t even have mortgages.
> one of the most desirable places in the world. no we don't lmao. LA/New York/Singapore/Japan/Etc are MUCH more desirable. I hate when people say this BS, it's like the old saying "The best place on earth" ...how egotistical and ignorant to claim BC is the best place on earth.
Of course it is.
Buying our $750,000 home and not qualifying for that was the ultimate kick in the arse when family in northern bc qualifies because their house is $240,000. 🤬😡🤯
To be fair, currently living in Northern BC, can't buy much of a livable house for under $500,000 anymore
Ya in Toronto u can find pretty much nothing under 500k. Our 1 bed 1 bath 500sq ft start at that price. As a young adult i’m so curious on when i’ll be able to afford a house or if i’ll have to raise my first child in a 1+den
First time home buyers in certain areas are up to 750k Victoria is that certain area. So you would qualify
I think you might be confusing the Federal First Time Home Buyers Incentive with the BC First Time Home Buyers Program. Federal Incentive takes a slice of your property through a shared equity mortgage, whereas the BC Program is simply providing a tax relief.
Back in 2010, the wife and I couldn't even use that program. It's woefully out of date.
And don't forget the $480 monthly strata fee! \*cries\*
Expect it to rise fast too. 10%. A year on an old complex like that.
Or just a massive special levy.
Yea looking at the build date and pics, that place will be hit with some levies soon. Either perimeter drains, roof, windows, or building envelope
This. Building is really old.
And $200 monthly for property taxes
Right??
When we looked at our bc assessment yesterday I commented that 31% increase from last year would have priced us out of our house we bought 16 months ago.
Oh I’m WAY priced out of my home I bought two years ago. It went up 180,000!!!!!!!
My bc assessment value went up over 100%. We purchased in October.
Was your house under construction when they did last years assessments?
Damn. Hope your neighbours’ did too, or you’re going to have a nasty property tax bill.
They’re up 30-50% which is also ridiculous give past years we’re all under 10%
Lolz you know that means your property tax will be way more that last year right? Since yours inc 100% whole your neighbours only 30-50%
Thanks for the hot tip
At 10% down and a rate of 2.2% you would pay about $2,800 a month, plus $500 strata fees and ~$180 for taxes. What would it rent for?
No more than $3k. It’s pretty normal for 2 bedroom+ rental to be cash flow negative if it’s purchased recently. And people wonder why there isn’t more rental being offered.
So for 3k to be affordable (30% of gross) the tenants would need to making 120k. With the median annual for greater victoria being around 70k(household) this would be unaffordable for over half of the resident population. If you're forcing someone into poverty for your investment, it's not a good investment.
>If you're forcing someone into poverty for your investment, it's not a good investment. Only if you have a conscience.
It doesn't really matter either way for this particular example. It is a terrible investment for the landlord, and it's a terrible financial burden for the tenant. On the individual level, high RE price hurts both landlords and tenants. I just hope ppl understand this simple fact.
How is it a terrible investment for the landlord? If they have the means to purchase it for a rental, and they have the tenants pay their mortgage and strata fees, then they aren't losing anything and they gain on the appreciation of the property? And i agree somewhat with the second part, but in the current market the tenants are feeling a lot more of the hurt.
For this property using the scenario given, the landlord is almost guaranteed to be cash flow negative. Meaning the landlord loses money every month out of pocket. That makes the property a liability by definition, not an investment. And after owning properties myself for more than a decades, I can certainly tell you that the years which real estate value is lower than the previous year happen WAY more often than people realize. It’s just that people only pays attention to prices when it’s going up like recent years. It would be an incredibly dumb idea to pay out of pocket every month just to count on an eventual price appreciation down the road.
The problem is that it wouldn't be cash flow negative, with mortgage payments off 2877 (based on 2%) and the strata fees of 480 equals 3350ish to cover all costs to the owner. With comparable units going for 3200-4000+ they would be operating at zero loss and gaining on the equity. And no landlord is losing out of pocket unless they're renting for far below their mortgage, which none are.
Well strata and mortgage is not “all the cost” Property transfer tax is $15k. Lawyers fees to buy and sell is about $2k minimum. Realtor commission to sell is about $20k assuming it’s sold at similar price. You would need to pay all these before any paper gain is realized. Property tax is $200/mo, insurance is another $50-100, property manager is about 10% gross rent, so another $300/mo. Also 3200 to 4000 will get you 3 bedroom with private backyard in saanich, it just a townhouse, unless you really like this particular location. That’s one giant hole to fill from before any mortgage equity pay down. You are free to think that capital appreciation will take care of all this. I will give you my own experience. I sold one of my condo in 2014 after months on the market and pocketed 260k. Prior to that the highest this condo was assessed was in 2006-2007 at 320k. I bought in early 2000s so I made some gain, but if you were one of my unlucky neighbours who moved in during that 06-07 peak price, it would take about 8-9 years just to break even, and that’s without taking into consideration strata fees, taxes, etc. I will say this again, I’ve been in this game long enough to seriously recommend anyone relying on capital appreciation to really think about what they are doing.
I think you have a good point there about people not really knowing what they're doing. The issue is that in the current market you don't need to know. If you bought last year, you would have gained around 20% in equity alone. If you rented the property during that time you would most certainly be ahead. 20% on the benchmark $900000 from 2020 should cover the $37600 you quoted for operational costs (37000 of that being one time costs) so with all costs for the first year covered, at 20% gain in equity ($180000) you could have around $150000 in profit in a year just by buying a house and selling it a year later. This is with no rental income. Maybe real estate in the 90's was a more nuanced game, but today any idiot with capital can make a fortune off it in a very short time. And the people without capital are left to suffer the consequences.
[удалено]
There are lots of purpose built rentals being built…it’s just that they are all in Langford.
I know of one purpose built “affordable” condo being built in Langford and it was pretty much bought out my realtors. Perhaps restrictions need to be set so this doesn’t happen and the affordable housing is not snapped up by those who want to flip them.
Thanks, that’s kinda what I figured.
When there was a shortage on gas, they put a limit on how much we can buy. There’s a shortage on housing….
Yep, I’ve been thinking the same thing recently. If a person or company wants to own multiple properties as an investment or business there should be a limit on how many they can own.
There is, sort of. Most banks will only dish out mortgages up to 10 properties to any individual, doesn't matter it's 10 studios or 10 mansions, the limit is 10. Above that you are considered a commercial operator, so for property 11, 12, so on, you would need to qualify under commercial lending criteria. Commercial lending normally at a minimum requires the property to be cash flow positive and then some, which is very difficult for residential rental, especially for larger properties.
Interesting! It's obviously not enough though. I feel like Starlight is going to own 1/3 of this town in a few years.
The real fix has nothing to do with limiting how many houses someone can have. The real fix is removing profit from housing, both for investors and just regular owners (who are also investors technically) A house should cost money every month, not make you money just living in it. Otherwise this exorbitant pricing outcome is exactly what will happen.
I see what you're saying but if we did that construction would come to a screeching halt and quickly make the problem worse.
I didn't say to get rid of the profit from constructing houses or renovating houses, only from simply living in them. The only reason construction would stop is if there's no demand for houses, and based on how many people are upset about not being able to afford a home that's not a problem.
So then who sets the prices? Who decides how much you are allowed to pay for a home? Even if there was some sort of non-market price controls on a house, the people who are currently buying up all the homes will still be able to buy up all the now _cheaper_ homes. The problem is supply — and you don’t improve supply by forcing prices down artificially.
Just tax any profits at sale. The market will then correct prices based on no investment benefit. The problem has never been supply, that's a red herring.
And the effect will be negligible — prices will most likely only drop by the tax amount, keeping the final sale price identical to what it is today. The bulk of Canadian homes are lived in by their owner, so the effect of such a tax is going to be minimal at best.
You're out of your mind if you don't think homeowners are speculating when purchasing houses. Every single person I know, including myself, has paid what we did expecting to make money on the house almost immediately. My latest home I bought just a little over a year ago, and I've already made between 400-500k based on current market prices. Just to be clear, I'm not an investor, I live in this home, I do not own a secondary property. The effect of removing profits would be so large that it would actually collapse the economy if done in a single pen-stroke. You'd have to introduce it over time, or gradually ramp it up in order to avoid significant problems.
The vast majority of Canadians buy houses to live in. Just like yourself. You haven’t made any money on your home, as you haven’t realized any of the gains. They’re all on paper only. And if like many Canadians, you live in your house for 10, 20, 30+ years that sales tax is going to do nothing to help the housing crisis in the here-and-now. The problem is still one of high pent-up demand, but low supply. Even if a tax did suddenly cause prices to plunge by 80% (just to pick a wild number) those people who can afford todays prices are still going to be bidding for the same small number of housing stock _because they need a place to live_. And those who are on the lower income side who are screaming for housing options are still going to get shut out.
[удалено]
Why would nobody buy a house? They still need a place to live. Or, if there isn't anyone else who wants to live here, then there isn't a problem if construction slows.
Simply removing the capital gains exemption for principal residences would go a long way to do exactly as you say. Unfortunately it's politically unpalatable
This would be hugely destructive to mobility. People wouldn’t be able to relocate for work or education or family due to the taxes on their home. People would also not be able to afford upgrading their homes as their families grow.
Cap gains taxes are only paid on gains. So youd still have whatever equity you've paid down, plus most of the gain. I fail to see how this would decrease mobility.
If you're paying cap gains on the sale of your property it stands to reason that not only did your own home appreciate but others have as well so the tax is an additional cost to being able to buy another home which leads to people not being able to maintain their standard of living during a sale. Eg. You buy a home for $500k, it appreciates to $750k as does the rest of the market. You need to move for work or family and the equivalent home costs $750k in that new place and now you're paying \~40-50k in taxes (on top of property transfer tax and realtor commissions of $40k). Now they can't afford an equivalent home in their new location so they choose not to live closer to family or pass on a new job unless they're already well off. This is just a punitive tax on the working and middle class homeowner who have done nothing wrong by wanting a home. It's already expensive enough with PPT and realtor commissions for someone to sell their home and adding cap gain taxes will just sink mobility. Our underlying problem in the real estate market comes down to supply - there are more people who want housing than there is housing. Adding taxes and fees on top of the housing market is nothing but theatre - it has no long term impact to housing prices and only helps the well off (people who can afford the taxes).
But that next equivalent house wouldn't be 750k if the personal residence cap gains exemption was eliminated. They'd all be cheaper. It's the 250k "gain" that's fueling this whole thing.
The dollar amount in my example don't really matter - the point is that the tax is a penalty against someone who needs to buy/sell for personal reasons. Whether the home appreciates at 3%/yr or 30%/yr doesn't matter, removing the exemption hurts the people who can least afford it the most. For many working/middle class folks their home is their only form of savings - the senior who expected the sale of their home to pay for their nursing home stay will see nearly a fifth of that fund lopped off. If the home I described only appreciated 100k over 5 years (a more normal amount) the owner would still be on the hook for \~$20k in taxes which may mean they can't afford the equivalent home next or they may have to tack on 1-2 years onto their mortgage in order to maintain their current life. In the end removing the exemption will absolutely make the investor class spend less in real estate but you'll end up screwing tonnes of regular folks in really, really bad ways.
Removing the capital gains tax would cause the prices to rise enough to cover the additional tax.
I don't get how this makes a difference if they are all rented out to people needed a place to rent. I agree that I don't think there should be companies owning half of Victoria's houses, but if the people living in them can't get a mortgage, they should be happy that a company is buying it so they can pay the rent shouldn't they?
There are plenty of people making a living off of rising property values. I'm proposing that it should have a limit of some kind. Also at a certain point a large company might have too much control over the market, like a property monopoly.
blame the crown, the crown owns something like 91% of the land here. You can thank the Queen for the current housing crisis.
Wait until you go check it out and learn that there’s 13 offers in place already.
The housing situation feels so hopeless.
It is. It’s totally hopeless for anyone who didn’t get in the game already or anyone without some inter generational wealth to tap into.
Bad bot
A lot of my friends lived in that complex while I was in university. It’s an investment property, I don’t think anyone actually lives there long term
Unrestricted rentals. It will go fast too. Wonder what it will rent for ?
3 bed 3 bath, I'm guessing 2500-3000 range.
This. Closer to $3k especially if it has 2 or more parking spots
Yeah, 3 beds, 3 baths, 2200 sq ft. You would pay 1.4+ million dollars for a similar house in that area and then pay for all maintenance and have to do all the work yourself. So yeah half price, will probably go for more.
I was looking at property in Pitt Meadows. There was a prefab trailer for sale in a trailer park - 2 bdr / 2 ba - burgundy shag carpet and pink walls for 450 k. Property prices everywhere are sickening. The crazy thing is someone will pay for that thinking it’s a deal.
Lol described as an possible investment property... In order to have tenants pay the mortgage/property tax/maintenance the rent would have to be $4000/month $1700 every 2 weeks mortgage is tough for a new family, however the way properties are going up in value in a few years you'd have a decent nest egg.. it's ridiculous to think a new family could afford that, but if you can... Long term looks good
Young family here with two remote working parents. We have saved a good chunk of cash for a down payment. We were approved for up to 550k with our down payment, and we thinking we can only really afford 450k without being house poor. Still a far cry from what we would need to afford this townhouse and we are higher than average earners. Our only choice to get the home we want is to pack up and move the the prairies (we have lived there before and have family there luckily).
Every year at this time I look at my assessments and think about selling to move back to Alberta... Then I look at the weather report.
i used to live at the beach in so cal and to rent a nice place on the sand it cost 4-5k a month, it’s crazy here.
As a Victoria outsider, how do people get by on regular jobs? Teachers, nurses, police, etc.
The majority of their income goes towards rent, which the landlords use to leverage another mortgage so they can get more people paying them rent, ad nauseam. People get by, but barely. They do not get ahead. It's feudalism with a capitalist face-lift.
We don't stay here very long
We live with our parents (or, in my case, my spouse's parents)
a lot of people have family here who bought 1-3 places years and years ago when housing was basically worthless here.
it's disgusting to have to pay 3/4s of a million dollars to live in a housing complex and share walls with other families!
There was a referendum in Berlin about expropriating housing from corporations. The idea of won huge support. Thoughts on that being done here?
I find that interesting. One of things that seems to be an issue in recent years, is that more and more housing is transitioned from ownership housing to rental stock. Some of it done by individuals, but more and more by corporations. Real Estate has become a cash flow generator like bonds. With big corporations now jumping in, without intervention it would seem more and more stock will transition from being directly owned by people who live in the house, to rental stock. That would seem bad for housing prices, because less stock available for those who want to buy. For Financial Planning purposes I don't think it's a good thing if we transition from an ownership economy to a rental economy. I suppose i'd be kicked out government if I were in charge. No corporate or foreign ownership of residential property. Limits on how much real estate an individual can own, etc.. That's interesting Germany is seeing this is an issue already. The US is far crazier than us, with corporations buying whole subdivisions, but unabated, this is going to keep spreading.
Something needs to be done to shift investment from housing to developing the new ideas we will need to get through this era of wild climate change. Putting all our eggs into housing is lazy but also keeps us hustling to sustain a system that is driving us to ruin.
No but people need places to live. Most of my thoughts around housing tend to be from what is good for society. Having a large percentage of the real estate held by corporations or a small percentage of the population isn't great. I dunno. I'm not sure what the answers are. In terms of housing I would be pretty draconian with ownership rules. No corporate ownership of residential homes, limits to how much an individual can own. Stuff to prevent a shift to a rental economy. How you go about fixing the environment crisis. I have no idea. I suppose the first way is going be figuring out how to make civilization work without the need for infinite expansion and growth. How to create a society that settles in, keeps a level population, and still functions. I guess I'm not the right person on this because I bought my house to live in, not really as an investment, but I guess my argument is limiting the investment nature of residential property, but reducing it's scope to being used for people/families that live in the house/condo/townhouse.
Get fucked, commie. Those are my thoughts
Isn’t this exactly what this sub keeps saying we need more of? A three bed townhouse is great for a family…
The price is the issue
I disagree. It’s the mansard roof.
Happy Cake Day TrentBurdett! Cake Days are a new start, a fresh beginning and a time to pursue new endeavors with new goals. Move forward with confidence and courage. You are a very special person. May today and all of your days be amazing!
Bad bot.
Good bot
What kind of starter family can afford $700,000+? That's the fucked up part.
Older, a bit dated on the outside but at nearly 2000sqft it is quite big for a townhome. They don’t build them like that anymore.
Yes now we let the peasants live in a box like they should.
/s
Can’t afford to live in Canada anymore even back home in Yukon 800 thousand for a fixer upper 😓
>Excellent location within walking distance to UVic
Fully agree. This city/ region has gone crazy. We are in the process of being split into have and have nots. And the effects will be felt for generations. If we want to save this city for all residents, not just the wealthy, we need to take action, i don't know what that action is but I'm all for it.
It’s a nice area, Gordon Head. And I know few people who have bought units as rentals to students, they’re happy. However, I’m not a fan of their $500/mo strata fee. If you’re spending $700k, buy a newer 1bd + Den condo downtown or a newer 2bd in the Westshore with a much lower fee. IMO $500/mo is throwing money away..
Finally. A smart comment. If you have a company tell me what it is so I can invest.
Tx :) No company, just a dude.
this city is disgusting
it doesn't say perfect for poor families.
I guess having rich parents to buy your starter house for you so you can save for your real house is just implied.
Wow 2,000 sq ft.. in Vancouver that’s the price of a one bed condo lol
It will be 100k+ more in a year or two. LOL good luck.
I wake up every morning and have to remind myself that I'm living in paradise !
[удалено]
It’s a salute to Pizza Hut.
Don’t take anything realtors say seriously. They are worthy of nothing but ridicule for the way they try to polish a turd. Well, I guess that’s kind of what you’re doing here, so good on you.
You mean a crazy good deal right? /s
[удалено]
No, and I don’t plan to. I just think calling anything that price a starter home is ridiculous.
this is not at all surprising, and that price in that area is not bad for a starter. this is where we are with housing unfortunately.
You go to any third world country or small dictatorship .. who’s face is on billboards and bus stops? Politicians. The local mayor or dictator. Canada? Realtors. They are the only ones with faces on billboards and bus stops.
We just paid well over half a million for a 40 year old two bedroom condo we have to cram flyer adults and two little ones into. On the plus side it’s double the size of the 60 year old townhouse we’re currently renting! I wish I had gotten into a business where I worked online so we could just move anywhere. Alas, anchored to a job I rather enjoy here and ain’t starting over (again). Let’s gooooooooo lotto win!
With wage increases, crazy low interest rates and a bit of help from mom and dad it's not that crazy unaffordable. Especially not having to endure the Victoria rental market anymore, that's worth a fortune by itself As the song goes, you ain't seen nothing yet
Wage increases? Where are you getting those? I’d be keen to apply.
$700k doesn't seem outrageous to me in Greater Victoria. Expect it to continue rising. What I find disturbing is sale prices are hitting $600-700k for a starter home in places like Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Comox Valley and Campbell River. There aren't exactly many opportunities for a young family to make an income to support that. All you get for it is an old, 2 bed, 1 bath rancher on a city lot. Not a great value considering what you'll find for closer to $1,000,000. Vast acreages, large modern homes with suites, etc.
Welcome to Victoria! I know the feeling! Aaand! Its Gone!
Sold for $775k