One idea for the mix: I read of a scheme in Europe where owner-occupied homes are built on leased land. The cost of the land (which in Vancouver is possibly worth more than the building) is not included in the drastically reduced mortgage payment. The land belongs to equity funds and various tax incentives (such as deductions for depreciation) make it worth their participation.
Rod, thanks for your comments and for reading. I like the scheme you are suggesting—it's one among several options, a simple solution, which is what we need. Happy Canada Day!
I believe Henry George had the answer. In his book. "Progress and Poverty", George said that we cannot live without land, air and water. Putting land in the category of "wealth" is a basic category error in human thinking, which eventually leads to the downfall of every advanced society.
The solution is for gov't to move towards a tax system that is based strictly on land value. This would allow for the elimination of all other taxes --which are unfair anyway, i.e., taxes on labour, improvements, etc. (Land value, by contrast, is determined by location and community amenities. Land owners need do nothing -- profit just happens while you sleep.)
Vancouver was once a 'Single Tax' city -- inspired by the Georgist millionaire, Joseph Fels. Fels came to Vancouver in his private train to convince early city fathers to consider this most rational and just option.
Einstein agreed with Henry George, and so do I. Nothing else will ultimately work.
I agree completely. Especially the assertion that more building does not mean lower prices. We have a reversed supply-demand equation it would seem. Build more supply, and suddenly you have prices going up! Well, as you said, who knows why that is, but it reminds me of the observation that when they widen and improve roads, the traffic may go faster but at the same time more cars appear as if by magic and the net result is no better and often worse. Here in Victoria there are high rises going up like mad, and nothing in those is cheap or affordable from what I see.
My public landlord here is planning to evict the families form our 14 unit townhouse complex (in a suburb) so they can put up two 6 storey towers. So much for the vaunted missing middle. Authorities love to cherry pick rationalizations for whatever it is they decide to do. Then, as you point out too, they are planning for the new buildings to be net-zero. Well, aren't they heroic. Building these affordable and net-zero energy apartments however, also requires the demolition of a whole lot of perfectly sound houses that are already affordable. Where does that carbon cost and long term life-cycle cost come in to this equation? Nowhere it seems. How convenient is that?
Our street is full of single family homes, a number of them with suites. We are between two nature parks as well, which makes the whole proposal an extreme example of inappropriate scale, massing, density, and an environmental insult to that and the neighbourhood. All this is justified by the fact that the main road at which we live has been designated as a density corridor. In a suburb, this is absurd. This is not an urban environment with all that that would entail.
Nobody here in these parts is without a vehicle. But the planners talk about walk able cities as if simply by building dense apartment blocks we will suddenly have the lifestyle of the Viennese or some such fantasy dream city. On it goes.
One solution is to make suites allowable everywhere. This should have been done decades ago, but in those days the planners and Councils were generally dead against it, because it would cheapen the neighbourhoods, I presume. Failure to allow densities to increase gradually have come back to haunt us. Now we have the province dictating laws that local governments used to be responsible for.
However, forcibly rezoning SF lots into 4 units is not an easy thing to achieve on the ground. It involves builders, plans, permits and so forth, a process that is far more complex than most home owners can undertake. Once again, over-reaction to compensate for previous bad plans. As you say on your first point, it all revolves around land costs. Land went up much faster than the cost of building here. We can build better and more efficiently, but if land remains unaffordable, then so will the buildings on that land be unaffordable.
Don, sorry to hear about your predicament. A few observations: yes, authorities have mostly omitted calculating the huge carbon cost of demolishing buildings—a few studies are bringing that into the mix, which results in much reduced net energy advantages; secondly, I kinda agree with the challenges of 4-plex creation from SFD, but it needn't be like this. My SFD home already has a legal basement suite. We could fairly easily add a laneway and turn our "too big for two retirees" home into a duplex, but the permitting costs are excessive, along with mandatory sprinklering (try that in a solid 80-year old house). So long as city halls see gentle densification as an opportunity to charge huge fees and downloaded costs, this work will proceed slowly. Take care and Happy Canada Day!
Well written, Brian.
One idea for the mix: I read of a scheme in Europe where owner-occupied homes are built on leased land. The cost of the land (which in Vancouver is possibly worth more than the building) is not included in the drastically reduced mortgage payment. The land belongs to equity funds and various tax incentives (such as deductions for depreciation) make it worth their participation.
Rod, thanks for your comments and for reading. I like the scheme you are suggesting—it's one among several options, a simple solution, which is what we need. Happy Canada Day!
I believe Henry George had the answer. In his book. "Progress and Poverty", George said that we cannot live without land, air and water. Putting land in the category of "wealth" is a basic category error in human thinking, which eventually leads to the downfall of every advanced society.
The solution is for gov't to move towards a tax system that is based strictly on land value. This would allow for the elimination of all other taxes --which are unfair anyway, i.e., taxes on labour, improvements, etc. (Land value, by contrast, is determined by location and community amenities. Land owners need do nothing -- profit just happens while you sleep.)
Vancouver was once a 'Single Tax' city -- inspired by the Georgist millionaire, Joseph Fels. Fels came to Vancouver in his private train to convince early city fathers to consider this most rational and just option.
Einstein agreed with Henry George, and so do I. Nothing else will ultimately work.
Jane Duval
Jane, I am familiar with George's book and its conclusions. We may get there in the end!
Thanks for reading!
I agree completely. Especially the assertion that more building does not mean lower prices. We have a reversed supply-demand equation it would seem. Build more supply, and suddenly you have prices going up! Well, as you said, who knows why that is, but it reminds me of the observation that when they widen and improve roads, the traffic may go faster but at the same time more cars appear as if by magic and the net result is no better and often worse. Here in Victoria there are high rises going up like mad, and nothing in those is cheap or affordable from what I see.
My public landlord here is planning to evict the families form our 14 unit townhouse complex (in a suburb) so they can put up two 6 storey towers. So much for the vaunted missing middle. Authorities love to cherry pick rationalizations for whatever it is they decide to do. Then, as you point out too, they are planning for the new buildings to be net-zero. Well, aren't they heroic. Building these affordable and net-zero energy apartments however, also requires the demolition of a whole lot of perfectly sound houses that are already affordable. Where does that carbon cost and long term life-cycle cost come in to this equation? Nowhere it seems. How convenient is that?
Our street is full of single family homes, a number of them with suites. We are between two nature parks as well, which makes the whole proposal an extreme example of inappropriate scale, massing, density, and an environmental insult to that and the neighbourhood. All this is justified by the fact that the main road at which we live has been designated as a density corridor. In a suburb, this is absurd. This is not an urban environment with all that that would entail.
Nobody here in these parts is without a vehicle. But the planners talk about walk able cities as if simply by building dense apartment blocks we will suddenly have the lifestyle of the Viennese or some such fantasy dream city. On it goes.
One solution is to make suites allowable everywhere. This should have been done decades ago, but in those days the planners and Councils were generally dead against it, because it would cheapen the neighbourhoods, I presume. Failure to allow densities to increase gradually have come back to haunt us. Now we have the province dictating laws that local governments used to be responsible for.
However, forcibly rezoning SF lots into 4 units is not an easy thing to achieve on the ground. It involves builders, plans, permits and so forth, a process that is far more complex than most home owners can undertake. Once again, over-reaction to compensate for previous bad plans. As you say on your first point, it all revolves around land costs. Land went up much faster than the cost of building here. We can build better and more efficiently, but if land remains unaffordable, then so will the buildings on that land be unaffordable.
Don, sorry to hear about your predicament. A few observations: yes, authorities have mostly omitted calculating the huge carbon cost of demolishing buildings—a few studies are bringing that into the mix, which results in much reduced net energy advantages; secondly, I kinda agree with the challenges of 4-plex creation from SFD, but it needn't be like this. My SFD home already has a legal basement suite. We could fairly easily add a laneway and turn our "too big for two retirees" home into a duplex, but the permitting costs are excessive, along with mandatory sprinklering (try that in a solid 80-year old house). So long as city halls see gentle densification as an opportunity to charge huge fees and downloaded costs, this work will proceed slowly. Take care and Happy Canada Day!