this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
100 points (95.5% liked)

Canada

7203 readers
158 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
100
Why Canada's ban on foreign buyers hasn't made homes more affordable (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A year ago, the federal government instituted a foreign buyer ban after passing the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act in 2022. The two-year ban, which came into effect on Jan. 1, barred non-citizens, non-permanent residents and foreign controlled companies from buying up Canadian property as an investment.

But Wallace says that ban didn't do much for her family.

"There's all of these very luxurious buildings going in all around us that are outrageously priced," said Wallace, after attending an open house at a promising $1.1-million condo. "The foreign buyers tax … I don't think that's making an iota of difference."

Critics say the foreign buyers ban, which was aimed at making housing affordable for Canadians, had many exemptions and was more of a political manoeuvre. They say it's clear housing remains out of reach for too many in Canada, and that the country should look to other places in the world to find strategies to foster home ownership.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

What's the number between foreign buyers

There's a video by Economics Explained that reviews this law change from an economic perspective. At around the 10 minute mark, he shows a chart of the country that breaks down provincial reporting of foreign property purchases. Not every province tracks this stat, but for those that do, foreign buyers are responsible for around 3%-6% of all purchases. Even then, this law didn't ban all of those purchases. There were so many exceptions that most foreign buyers could still buy all the property they wanted. I'm not sure that anyone tracks if a property buyer already owns property.

The video suggests, as does the OP article, that this was likely a political stunt to make it seem like the government is doing something while not actually doing anything. Actually lowering house prices comes with economic negatives. For people who already own houses, their house could then be worth less than their mortgage, a decline in GDP figures which many see as an indication of a recession, and a decline in stock market value since so much of it is now tied to real estate assets. The government wants to avoid hurting the economy while appeasing people who see houses as something to live in and not as a financial asset.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Actually lowering house prices comes with economic negatives.

That depends strongly on how you go about doing it. If you try to do it by destroying jobs and turning your city into Detroit or something, sure, that's bad. But if you do it the sane way, by fixing the zoning code to allow more density and require less (expensive and space-inefficient) parking, then you're making the city a more desirable place to live at the same time and it becomes a virtuous cycle.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Plus building density encourages transit, which is more economically and energy effecient than everyone driving. Even if everyone is in an EV, electrified transit is still more effecient.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I would phrase that even more strongly: trying to design cities to accommodate cars is utterly disastrous, and would still be so even if they ran on pixie dust and emitted nothing but unicorn farts.

The biggest problem isn't even pollution or energy efficiency; it's just the sheer amount of space cars waste (in terms of both wide streets and parking lots)! Allowing the presence of cars to destroy walkability -- and make no mistake: accommodating cars and having any other transportation mode (walking, biking, transit) be viable are mutually-exclusive -- has all sorts of knock-on negative effects, up to and including increasing obesity (because walkable cities help keep people fit) and harming mental health (because Euclidean zoning often makes it illegal to build "Third Places" near housing).

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Its almost as if most roadway design theory is based on stuff they made up in the 60s off no real data other than wanting to sell The American Dream

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But no matter how you do it the metrics they mentioned will still go down. Property values will go down because reducing property values and making housing affordable is pretty much equivalent.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

The 40-60 year old houses that have been neglected for years sitting on half an acre in an older part of my hometown really shouldn't be worth 750k-900k anyway.

[–] Ryan213@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Thanks! I think I remember reading something about this "ban" that it really isn't a ban, just extra hurdles that can be circumvented.