Total deficit of 10.34 billion. Naturally, the usual suspects are yelling about government waste.
The thing is, it's a pretty conservative budget. It has some capital projects such as a new hospital in Edmonton (which, after my time in our hospitals last year, thank god), a courthouse in Red Deer. Otherwise, it's basically 'maintain infrastructure, pay salaries'.
Because I can't think of -any- better plan than a bunch of unelected businessmen deciding where we should cut government spending. Accountability to voters? Who needs it!
Well, they are definitely continuing the long tradition of overestimating how much royalty money will be coming in.
That's a 45 billion dollar deficit projecting 68$ oil. Not sure what alternate reality they live in but we are still 2-3 years away at the soonest before we see a climb that high.
We are sitting currently at 48$ and sliding..
So more accurately we are going to see a 60-65$ billion deficit and the highest in Alberta's history by a wide margin. It's like they are actively trying to not get reelected.
But part of it may be one of the big things I've noticed that I think, at least personally, is a major source of the current problem: there are no starter homes. They don't build them. They barely exist in a lot of areas and anywhere new houses are being built they don't seem to exist either. Builders only care about making a buck and big houses are more profitable per land area. And they aren't just not building them but in the city and such they are actively being destroyed. Older smaller homes are bought and virtually always torn down and replaced with a newer, larger home because the location is way more valuable then the building itself. I think this skews prices upwards by increasing the average size of the home in the area and by forcing people who do want a small new house to bid each other up to get them. And so young families looking for a first home have a ton of difficulty finding anything.
Interestingly, I've seen the opposite problem in Québec City. Older bigger homes on large plots of land and being bought and torn down and replaced by multiple smaller houses or semis. I haven't checked what it does for prices, but it's doing a mess on traffic in those areas. Our town is also on the verge of a condo bubble popping IMO. Those things have been going up like mushrooms for years, and now we have entire neighbourhoods of identical 6-block and 8-block condos with "for sale" signs in front of each one.
I've talked about it a few times in chat, but let's talk about the Toronto housing market for a second.
So we bought a house last year in the area. This isn't our situation exactly, but I think it's illustrative of the problem here. Imagine you are a couple, no debt, making exactly 6 figures, with the standard down payment available. You are looking for a 3 bedroom house. You will take a townhouse easily (ie - the cheapest kind of house). 2015 this would mean you were priced out of basically any community closer then 45 minutes from the border of Toronto. Literally you just couldn't move closer then that and at that distance houses will be snapped up literally within hours. If a house lasts more then 24 hours, it's because the owners are holding off on offers to start a bidding war. That's the market as it exists.
Then this year, just a few weeks ago, our neighbour sold her house. Literally identical to ours. We didn't even get to snoop during the open house because it sold within a day on a bully offer. For over asking. By a lot. The price she sold at compared to the price we paid only a year earlier for a literally (and I mean literally) identical house? ~50% more. We were fucking blown away.
The market is insane. It's always been fucking pricey but it's been going up by in crazy ways for several years now and this last year in particular, judging from some browsing of MLS listings, has been like twice as crazy as usual.
Though interestingly it seems to depend on the house size. I feel like it's the low end that's really getting insane, at least in my area. The larger houses have gone up in price but it's the smaller houses that went up insane amounts. I wonder if it's just people being priced out or something.
But part of it may be one of the big things I've noticed that I think, at least personally, is a major source of the current problem: there are no starter homes. They don't build them. They barely exist in a lot of areas and anywhere new houses are being built they don't seem to exist either. Builders only care about making a buck and big houses are more profitable per land area. And they aren't just not building them but in the city and such they are actively being destroyed. Older smaller homes are bought and virtually always torn down and replaced with a newer, larger home because the location is way more valuable then the building itself. I think this skews prices upwards by increasing the average size of the home in the area and by forcing people who do want a small new house to bid each other up to get them. And so young families looking for a first home have a ton of difficulty finding anything.
It can't be good for demographics and such either. Young people are essentially being priced out of the city and the nearby areas all together. Nobody I know can afford to move anywhere near the city when they want to buy. Most of the sales in the city around the neighbourhoods I know people in go to older (40+) upper middle class established families.
I come from a construction background and have had a few conversations on the subject.
for builders, stater homes are the least profitable thing they can built. It's usually very low margin basic "spec" home with no upgrades or additions (finished basement's, garages etc.. ).
Alternatively, condos are massively profitable as even if you are selling "spec" you make up for it by how quickly you can build a unit (in aggregate) vs a single family starter and also you are sometimes building 20 - 100 units in a building.
But the real money is in the Step up or estate homes. People that buy those never go spec and upgrade nearly every single thing from light fixtures to banisters to appliances and you are making very decent profit on all of those. In Toronto's market where demand massively trumps supply there is zzero economic reason to build a starter home when you can build something more profitable. The plot sizes are only negligibly bigger lately as well.
The goverment has in it's power to mandate builders to construct or offer certain types of homes but let's not forget that they also make a cut of these sales in taxes and that the municipalities are more than happy to collect your property tax on a 900K home versus 300K.
And in a purely logical sense if you build 10 x 5 million dollar single family homes or 10 x starter 300K homes you are still housing the same exact number of people. Now, this can only continue for so long and is totally bonkers but look at bc's 20+ year run of thinking this is sound economics.
I would think the best solution would be for cities to set a certain population density target, and force builders to adhere to that. So the more estates that are built, the more condos need to be built.
I know a lot of people have dreams of having their own yards etc, but at a certain point, that is what public parks are for.
Total deficit of 10.34 billion. Naturally, the usual suspects are yelling about government waste.
The thing is, it's a pretty conservative budget. It has some capital projects such as a new hospital in Edmonton (which, after my time in our hospitals last year, thank god), a courthouse in Red Deer. Otherwise, it's basically 'maintain infrastructure, pay salaries'.
Because I can't think of -any- better plan than a bunch of unelected businessmen deciding where we should cut government spending. Accountability to voters? Who needs it!
Well, they are definitely continuing the long tradition of overestimating how much royalty money will be coming in.
That's a 45 billion dollar deficit projecting 68$ oil. Not sure what alternate reality they live in but we are still 2-3 years away at the soonest before we see a climb that high.
We are sitting currently at 48$ and sliding..
So more accurately we are going to see a 60-65$ billion deficit and the highest in Alberta's history by a wide margin. It's like they are actively trying to not get reelected.
The 68$ a barrel oil is predicted for 2019, but yes, it's optimistic.
The 55$ a barrel oil for this year is based on a consensus of estimates, with a 500 million dollar cushion built in, in case prices slide.
Again, though, where do you cut? Because your options are - cut services, new taxes, run a deficit.
There's not a lot of fat in that budget. It's maintaining basic services and a few desperately needed capital projects.
One option that a lot of people have started floating is a sales tax, but, honestly - how do you think Albertans would react to an HST?
I would think the best solution would be for cities to set a certain population density target, and force builders to adhere to that. So the more estates that are built, the more condos need to be built.
I know a lot of people have dreams of having their own yards etc, but at a certain point, that is what public parks are for.
Stater homes are nearly have the same density as step up's fyi.
Condo's are great as long as you don't have dogs, kids, don't have a condo board full of retired busy bodies, condo fee's that suddenly spike by 50%, "special assessment's" of 22K out of the blue or happen to have some that are built out of cardboard.
I would think the best solution would be for cities to set a certain population density target, and force builders to adhere to that. So the more estates that are built, the more condos need to be built.
I know a lot of people have dreams of having their own yards etc, but at a certain point, that is what public parks are for.
Stater homes are nearly have the same density as step up's fyi.
Condo's are great as long as you don't have dogs, kids, don't have a condo board full of retired busy bodies, condo fee's that suddenly spike by 50%, "special assessment's" of 22K out of the blue or happen to have some that are built out of cardboard.
Personal experience but fuck condo living.
Every person I know who's lived in a condo has had issues.
In one case, the condo board head embezzled all the money from the fund and disappeared.
In another, they built the condos to architectural specs from California without accounting for the fact that, in Edmonton, Snow Exists.
Total deficit of 10.34 billion. Naturally, the usual suspects are yelling about government waste.
The thing is, it's a pretty conservative budget. It has some capital projects such as a new hospital in Edmonton (which, after my time in our hospitals last year, thank god), a courthouse in Red Deer. Otherwise, it's basically 'maintain infrastructure, pay salaries'.
Because I can't think of -any- better plan than a bunch of unelected businessmen deciding where we should cut government spending. Accountability to voters? Who needs it!
Well, they are definitely continuing the long tradition of overestimating how much royalty money will be coming in.
That's a 45 billion dollar deficit projecting 68$ oil. Not sure what alternate reality they live in but we are still 2-3 years away at the soonest before we see a climb that high.
We are sitting currently at 48$ and sliding..
So more accurately we are going to see a 60-65$ billion deficit and the highest in Alberta's history by a wide margin. It's like they are actively trying to not get reelected.
The 68$ a barrel oil is predicted for 2019, but yes, it's optimistic.
The 55$ a barrel oil for this year is based on a consensus of estimates, with a 500 million dollar cushion built in, in case prices slide.
Again, though, where do you cut? Because your options are - cut services, new taxes, run a deficit.
There's not a lot of fat in that budget. It's maintaining basic services and a few desperately needed capital projects.
One option that a lot of people have started floating is a sales tax, but, honestly - how do you think Albertans would react to an HST?
I can see the headlines now "NDP strangle the Alberta Advantage in its crib with HST"
Total deficit of 10.34 billion. Naturally, the usual suspects are yelling about government waste.
The thing is, it's a pretty conservative budget. It has some capital projects such as a new hospital in Edmonton (which, after my time in our hospitals last year, thank god), a courthouse in Red Deer. Otherwise, it's basically 'maintain infrastructure, pay salaries'.
Because I can't think of -any- better plan than a bunch of unelected businessmen deciding where we should cut government spending. Accountability to voters? Who needs it!
Well, they are definitely continuing the long tradition of overestimating how much royalty money will be coming in.
That's a 45 billion dollar deficit projecting 68$ oil. Not sure what alternate reality they live in but we are still 2-3 years away at the soonest before we see a climb that high.
We are sitting currently at 48$ and sliding..
So more accurately we are going to see a 60-65$ billion deficit and the highest in Alberta's history by a wide margin. It's like they are actively trying to not get reelected.
The 68$ a barrel oil is predicted for 2019, but yes, it's optimistic.
The 55$ a barrel oil for this year is based on a consensus of estimates, with a 500 million dollar cushion built in, in case prices slide.
Again, though, where do you cut? Because your options are - cut services, new taxes, run a deficit.
There's not a lot of fat in that budget. It's maintaining basic services and a few desperately needed capital projects.
One option that a lot of people have started floating is a sales tax, but, honestly - how do you think Albertans would react to an HST?
For sure.
My problem with the NDP is they are absolutely terrible at marketing that. Now all the people that were already not super happy with them have a quiver full of new ammo to use against them.
PSN: Canadian_llama
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Total deficit of 10.34 billion. Naturally, the usual suspects are yelling about government waste.
The thing is, it's a pretty conservative budget. It has some capital projects such as a new hospital in Edmonton (which, after my time in our hospitals last year, thank god), a courthouse in Red Deer. Otherwise, it's basically 'maintain infrastructure, pay salaries'.
Because I can't think of -any- better plan than a bunch of unelected businessmen deciding where we should cut government spending. Accountability to voters? Who needs it!
Well, they are definitely continuing the long tradition of overestimating how much royalty money will be coming in.
That's a 45 billion dollar deficit projecting 68$ oil. Not sure what alternate reality they live in but we are still 2-3 years away at the soonest before we see a climb that high.
We are sitting currently at 48$ and sliding..
So more accurately we are going to see a 60-65$ billion deficit and the highest in Alberta's history by a wide margin. It's like they are actively trying to not get reelected.
The 68$ a barrel oil is predicted for 2019, but yes, it's optimistic.
The 55$ a barrel oil for this year is based on a consensus of estimates, with a 500 million dollar cushion built in, in case prices slide.
Again, though, where do you cut? Because your options are - cut services, new taxes, run a deficit.
There's not a lot of fat in that budget. It's maintaining basic services and a few desperately needed capital projects.
One option that a lot of people have started floating is a sales tax, but, honestly - how do you think Albertans would react to an HST?
For sure.
My problem with the NDP is they are absolutely terrible at marketing that. Now all the people that were already not super happy with them have a quiver full of new ammo to use against them.
I think the NDP getting one term and one term only has been a forgone conclusion since the election.
I just hope Alberta doesn't end up with the Wildrose.....
Honestly I kind of do hope the Wildrose wins, but after seeing what happened with Trump I'm not sure letting people experience the post apocalypse they think will be so great is a good idea. I am constantly disappointed by how little accountability the WR is held to.
Total deficit of 10.34 billion. Naturally, the usual suspects are yelling about government waste.
The thing is, it's a pretty conservative budget. It has some capital projects such as a new hospital in Edmonton (which, after my time in our hospitals last year, thank god), a courthouse in Red Deer. Otherwise, it's basically 'maintain infrastructure, pay salaries'.
Because I can't think of -any- better plan than a bunch of unelected businessmen deciding where we should cut government spending. Accountability to voters? Who needs it!
Well, they are definitely continuing the long tradition of overestimating how much royalty money will be coming in.
That's a 45 billion dollar deficit projecting 68$ oil. Not sure what alternate reality they live in but we are still 2-3 years away at the soonest before we see a climb that high.
We are sitting currently at 48$ and sliding..
So more accurately we are going to see a 60-65$ billion deficit and the highest in Alberta's history by a wide margin. It's like they are actively trying to not get reelected.
The 68$ a barrel oil is predicted for 2019, but yes, it's optimistic.
The 55$ a barrel oil for this year is based on a consensus of estimates, with a 500 million dollar cushion built in, in case prices slide.
Again, though, where do you cut? Because your options are - cut services, new taxes, run a deficit.
There's not a lot of fat in that budget. It's maintaining basic services and a few desperately needed capital projects.
One option that a lot of people have started floating is a sales tax, but, honestly - how do you think Albertans would react to an HST?
For sure.
My problem with the NDP is they are absolutely terrible at marketing that. Now all the people that were already not super happy with them have a quiver full of new ammo to use against them.
Honestly, though, while I normally agree that the NDP is bad at communication, they've been pretty up front about this particular budget.
The problem, unfortunately, is that the media coverage in Alberta is always going to skew right, and 'yeah the budget sucks but there's not really a better option' isn't going to sell as many papers as 'doom and gloom'.
It's a shitty situation, brought on by decades of financial mismanagement, and there's no path out of it that isn't going to be painful as all hell.
Honestly I kind of do hope the Wildrose wins, but after seeing what happened with Trump I'm not sure letting people experience the post apocalypse they think will be so great is a good idea. I am constantly disappointed by how little accountability the WR is held to.
I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I personally don't find the NDP are doing a great job ( but not the worst party EVARRR like a lot of the loud morlocks are screaming), can't vote Wildrose because I'm not crazy xenophobic and/or really in love with Jesus and the conservatives are just bad.
Re: Housing; I live in downtown Toronto by renting. I've been renting since I moved out of my mother's house nearly two decades ago, and have come to accept that despite making fairly good money (imo), I may never actually own a home unless I'm also willing to add a 2+ hour round trip commute to my day (I'm not) or marry into money (which it sitting alongside "or win the lottery" in terms of likelihood).
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Honestly I kind of do hope the Wildrose wins, but after seeing what happened with Trump I'm not sure letting people experience the post apocalypse they think will be so great is a good idea. I am constantly disappointed by how little accountability the WR is held to.
I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I personally don't find the NDP are doing a great job ( but not the worst party EVARRR like a lot of the loud morlocks are screaming), can't vote Wildrose because I'm not crazy xenophobic and/or really in love with Jesus and the conservatives are just bad.
Our Liberal party is kinda of a joke atm as well.
What liberal party
Poor Dr. David Swann.. sorry thats MLA... we have 4 Liberal MPs :sad:
Honestly I kind of do hope the Wildrose wins, but after seeing what happened with Trump I'm not sure letting people experience the post apocalypse they think will be so great is a good idea. I am constantly disappointed by how little accountability the WR is held to.
I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I personally don't find the NDP are doing a great job ( but not the worst party EVARRR like a lot of the loud morlocks are screaming), can't vote Wildrose because I'm not crazy xenophobic and/or really in love with Jesus and the conservatives are just bad.
Military procurement, and general procurement through the fed is challenging and no one party is solely responsible for that mess. Our biggest issues is probably proximity to the US Military Industrial Complex and the close relations we have with the US Army wagging the dog a bit on can collaborate with their systems. F-35 mess is a probably the worst example of a procurement but everything from ship-building to sidearms has been a farce.
Wanted to point people this way and post this little gem from the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/toronto-housing-bmo-td-1.4028032 - I know that home owners are counting on the equity built into the homes they own, but the info-graphic at the mid point of this article is insane, 225k/year family salary, saved 100k for a down payment and still 200k short of being able to buy the average detached home. TD has taken a bit of a shit-canning this week, but I think their financial analysis part is still decent.
I haven't heard news from the Vancouver real-estate rodeo recently, have rules enacted provincially made any headway or have they just kicked the problem down the road?
I haven't seen detailed analysis of the effect of the foreign buyers tax on Vancouver real estate but I have heard that it cooled the price increases somewhat. Although... I have also heard that it shifted things over to the Toronto area more, causing prices in the GTA to increase even more.
The GTA is out of control. Totally out of control. The Ontario government really needs to address the issue.
Foreign buyers tax hasn't brought prices down really (99% of houses in City of Vancouver proper are over 1 million still), but has slowed the market a bit for single family homes. Entry level condos are still going nuts because in most of Metro Vancouver that is all most people can afford. The tax also only applies in Metro Vancouver, so the Victoria market has seen some deflection of interest.
Also, GTA and Seattle markets went nuts after foreign buyers tax brought in here, so make of that what you will.
Given that some cities are out of reach price wise for your average person/family how can the government help make other places more attractive?
Basically how can we create more Toronto's or Vancouver's?
Even in market crashes, places that we're talking about will just level out. Shits not going to get cheaper so what do we do to build the rest of this country up?
I think it's natural that families want kids, a dog and a yard and that doesn't make them awful people. The fact is that getting something like that in a major metro area these days is just not possible anymore.
Given that some cities are out of reach price wise for your average person/family how can the government help make other places more attractive?
Basically how can we create more Toronto's or Vancouver's?
Even in market crashes, places that we're talking about will just level out. Shits not going to get cheaper so what do we do to build the rest of this country up?
I think it's natural that families want kids, a dog and a yard and that doesn't make them awful people. The fact is that getting something like that in a major metro area these days is just not possible anymore.
Decentralization.
It's natural to want to live near the area of the city where your job is, where businesses and services are located, where activities and bars and parks are found. In many cities that's the downtown core. That creates a high demand for housing near the downtown area. Which in turn gives you the conundrum: buy an overpriced property where you want to live, or buy a cheap property and suffer long commutes.
By decentralizing, you create multiple "districts". Multiple malls and commercial areas, several government service hubs, one or two popular bar streets, etc. People will want to live near the one that is most convenient for them, which will spread demand in multiple areas of the city and limit potential for one "hot spot". Allow a very efficient highway system between the various districts for faster transit and you further reduce pressure to live in one specific area.
Given that some cities are out of reach price wise for your average person/family how can the government help make other places more attractive?
Basically how can we create more Toronto's or Vancouver's?
Even in market crashes, places that we're talking about will just level out. Shits not going to get cheaper so what do we do to build the rest of this country up?
I think it's natural that families want kids, a dog and a yard and that doesn't make them awful people. The fact is that getting something like that in a major metro area these days is just not possible anymore.
Decentralization.
It's natural to want to live near the area of the city where your job is, where businesses and services are located, where activities and bars and parks are found. In many cities that's the downtown core. That creates a high demand for housing near the downtown area. Which in turn gives you the conundrum: buy an overpriced property where you want to live, or buy a cheap property and suffer long commutes.
By decentralizing, you create multiple "districts". Multiple malls and commercial areas, several government service hubs, one or two popular bar streets, etc. People will want to live near the one that is most convenient for them, which will spread demand in multiple areas of the city and limit potential for one "hot spot". Allow a very efficient highway system between the various districts for faster transit and you further reduce pressure to live in one specific area.
Thanks, that's what I was getting at but couldn't articulate.
Has anyone done this successfully? UK?
Given that some cities are out of reach price wise for your average person/family how can the government help make other places more attractive?
Basically how can we create more Toronto's or Vancouver's?
Even in market crashes, places that we're talking about will just level out. Shits not going to get cheaper so what do we do to build the rest of this country up?
I think it's natural that families want kids, a dog and a yard and that doesn't make them awful people. The fact is that getting something like that in a major metro area these days is just not possible anymore.
Decentralization.
It's natural to want to live near the area of the city where your job is, where businesses and services are located, where activities and bars and parks are found. In many cities that's the downtown core. That creates a high demand for housing near the downtown area. Which in turn gives you the conundrum: buy an overpriced property where you want to live, or buy a cheap property and suffer long commutes.
By decentralizing, you create multiple "districts". Multiple malls and commercial areas, several government service hubs, one or two popular bar streets, etc. People will want to live near the one that is most convenient for them, which will spread demand in multiple areas of the city and limit potential for one "hot spot". Allow a very efficient highway system between the various districts for faster transit and you further reduce pressure to live in one specific area.
The only issue with that is that it's nearly impossible to do that without starting from scratch.
Calgary is currently experimenting with creating a 2nd "hub" away from downtown.
Given that some cities are out of reach price wise for your average person/family how can the government help make other places more attractive?
Basically how can we create more Toronto's or Vancouver's?
Even in market crashes, places that we're talking about will just level out. Shits not going to get cheaper so what do we do to build the rest of this country up?
I think it's natural that families want kids, a dog and a yard and that doesn't make them awful people. The fact is that getting something like that in a major metro area these days is just not possible anymore.
Decentralization.
It's natural to want to live near the area of the city where your job is, where businesses and services are located, where activities and bars and parks are found. In many cities that's the downtown core. That creates a high demand for housing near the downtown area. Which in turn gives you the conundrum: buy an overpriced property where you want to live, or buy a cheap property and suffer long commutes.
By decentralizing, you create multiple "districts". Multiple malls and commercial areas, several government service hubs, one or two popular bar streets, etc. People will want to live near the one that is most convenient for them, which will spread demand in multiple areas of the city and limit potential for one "hot spot". Allow a very efficient highway system between the various districts for faster transit and you further reduce pressure to live in one specific area.
The only issue with that is that it's nearly impossible to do that without starting from scratch.
Calgary is currently experimenting with creating a 2nd "hub" away from downtown.
I like walkable neighborhoods with actual stores nearby, I had that when I rented and lived just off 17th ave. Quick walk to the Co-op, Kalamata Groceries was a block or two away was great, would walk to work every morning.
Now I am in the last bit of West Hillhurst before it turns into Parkdale, crowchild trail is right there, we have a 7/11, a vet, some tax place, Pizza Bobs (which is hit or miss) a horse store and more recently a Co-Op liquor store, all in walking distance. Lots more in biking distance or short drive away. Need a better pub, and a grocery store.
Switch SW-6182-1526-0041
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I lived in Dalhousie for a year or so, which was nice. 2 minute walk from a big strip mall with Safeway, some restaurants, a bookstore (And, since I moved away, Memory Express).
Calgary is a car city, though. Riding transit took so much time out of my day. When I got into an accident and my car was unavailable for a while, a 20 minute car trip was over an hour by bus.
Given that some cities are out of reach price wise for your average person/family how can the government help make other places more attractive?
Basically how can we create more Toronto's or Vancouver's?
Even in market crashes, places that we're talking about will just level out. Shits not going to get cheaper so what do we do to build the rest of this country up?
I think it's natural that families want kids, a dog and a yard and that doesn't make them awful people. The fact is that getting something like that in a major metro area these days is just not possible anymore.
Decentralization.
It's natural to want to live near the area of the city where your job is, where businesses and services are located, where activities and bars and parks are found. In many cities that's the downtown core. That creates a high demand for housing near the downtown area. Which in turn gives you the conundrum: buy an overpriced property where you want to live, or buy a cheap property and suffer long commutes.
By decentralizing, you create multiple "districts". Multiple malls and commercial areas, several government service hubs, one or two popular bar streets, etc. People will want to live near the one that is most convenient for them, which will spread demand in multiple areas of the city and limit potential for one "hot spot". Allow a very efficient highway system between the various districts for faster transit and you further reduce pressure to live in one specific area.
The only issue with that is that it's nearly impossible to do that without starting from scratch.
Calgary is currently experimenting with creating a 2nd "hub" away from downtown.
I like walkable neighborhoods with actual stores nearby, I had that when I rented and lived just off 17th ave. Quick walk to the Co-op, Kalamata Groceries was a block or two away was great, would walk to work every morning.
Now I am in the last bit of West Hillhurst before it turns into Parkdale, crowchild trail is right there, we have a 7/11, a vet, some tax place, Pizza Bobs (which is hit or miss) a horse store and more recently a Co-Op liquor store, all in walking distance. Lots more in biking distance or short drive away. Need a better pub, and a grocery store.
Careful with pizza bobs. My friends and I game in kensington and used to order there till we all got food poisoning one night. called to mention that to them and got hung up on.
That horse store is so weird! K-pub nearby is pretty great as is the regal beagle.
Given that some cities are out of reach price wise for your average person/family how can the government help make other places more attractive?
Basically how can we create more Toronto's or Vancouver's?
Even in market crashes, places that we're talking about will just level out. Shits not going to get cheaper so what do we do to build the rest of this country up?
I think it's natural that families want kids, a dog and a yard and that doesn't make them awful people. The fact is that getting something like that in a major metro area these days is just not possible anymore.
Decentralization.
It's natural to want to live near the area of the city where your job is, where businesses and services are located, where activities and bars and parks are found. In many cities that's the downtown core. That creates a high demand for housing near the downtown area. Which in turn gives you the conundrum: buy an overpriced property where you want to live, or buy a cheap property and suffer long commutes.
By decentralizing, you create multiple "districts". Multiple malls and commercial areas, several government service hubs, one or two popular bar streets, etc. People will want to live near the one that is most convenient for them, which will spread demand in multiple areas of the city and limit potential for one "hot spot". Allow a very efficient highway system between the various districts for faster transit and you further reduce pressure to live in one specific area.
The only issue with that is that it's nearly impossible to do that without starting from scratch.
Calgary is currently experimenting with creating a 2nd "hub" away from downtown.
I like walkable neighborhoods with actual stores nearby, I had that when I rented and lived just off 17th ave. Quick walk to the Co-op, Kalamata Groceries was a block or two away was great, would walk to work every morning.
Now I am in the last bit of West Hillhurst before it turns into Parkdale, crowchild trail is right there, we have a 7/11, a vet, some tax place, Pizza Bobs (which is hit or miss) a horse store and more recently a Co-Op liquor store, all in walking distance. Lots more in biking distance or short drive away. Need a better pub, and a grocery store.
Careful with pizza bobs. My friends and I game in kensington and used to order there till we all got food poisoning one night. called to mention that to them and got hung up on.
That horse store is so weird! K-pub nearby is pretty great as is the regal beagle.
yea Bobs is .. yea.. i've had decent pizza there but it is all thin crust and 99% of the time I dont want thin crust (thank goodness Gus's Pizza is just up the hill) . Its a bit of a dive too which I don't mind a good dive bar can be great but its so hit or miss. Haven't been back there in over a year. Love the K-Pub, just wish it was in walking distance.
Given that some cities are out of reach price wise for your average person/family how can the government help make other places more attractive?
Basically how can we create more Toronto's or Vancouver's?
Even in market crashes, places that we're talking about will just level out. Shits not going to get cheaper so what do we do to build the rest of this country up?
I think it's natural that families want kids, a dog and a yard and that doesn't make them awful people. The fact is that getting something like that in a major metro area these days is just not possible anymore.
Decentralization.
It's natural to want to live near the area of the city where your job is, where businesses and services are located, where activities and bars and parks are found. In many cities that's the downtown core. That creates a high demand for housing near the downtown area. Which in turn gives you the conundrum: buy an overpriced property where you want to live, or buy a cheap property and suffer long commutes.
By decentralizing, you create multiple "districts". Multiple malls and commercial areas, several government service hubs, one or two popular bar streets, etc. People will want to live near the one that is most convenient for them, which will spread demand in multiple areas of the city and limit potential for one "hot spot". Allow a very efficient highway system between the various districts for faster transit and you further reduce pressure to live in one specific area.
This only does so much. Toronto already has this. Not everyone is going downtown. In fact these days the traffic out of the city in certain directions is just as bad as that into the city in the morning and vice versa in the evening. Frankly there's a ton of industries where you'll never work downtown because there's not the room for the type of industry. People still want to live near the city or in the city and the jobs don't have to be anywhere near downtown to still be within the metro area.
But part of it may be one of the big things I've noticed that I think, at least personally, is a major source of the current problem: there are no starter homes. They don't build them. They barely exist in a lot of areas and anywhere new houses are being built they don't seem to exist either. Builders only care about making a buck and big houses are more profitable per land area. And they aren't just not building them but in the city and such they are actively being destroyed. Older smaller homes are bought and virtually always torn down and replaced with a newer, larger home because the location is way more valuable then the building itself. I think this skews prices upwards by increasing the average size of the home in the area and by forcing people who do want a small new house to bid each other up to get them. And so young families looking for a first home have a ton of difficulty finding anything.
Interestingly, I've seen the opposite problem in Québec City. Older bigger homes on large plots of land and being bought and torn down and replaced by multiple smaller houses or semis. I haven't checked what it does for prices, but it's doing a mess on traffic in those areas. Our town is also on the verge of a condo bubble popping IMO. Those things have been going up like mushrooms for years, and now we have entire neighbourhoods of identical 6-block and 8-block condos with "for sale" signs in front of each one.
We used to have this in my parents neighbourhood actually. Usually it was old auto-shops or gas stations (basically places that couldn't easily be converted to another commercial use) that were torn down and replaced by like 10 townhouses or something ridiculous like that.
That's mostly stopped now. Now they buy old houses, tear them down and replace them with larger houses and do this at a profit. Or they build fucking masses of condos. The condos are the worse of the two for anyone already living there since there's no upgrade in infrastructure for the increase in population density so the traffic just becomes fucking abominable. The city seems to think everyone will take the subway or the TTC but this completely misses what I'm talking about above, which is that most of these people don't work downtown. Often they commute out of the city.
Downtown is turning into a mass of condos too and you can basically no longer see the lake a lot of places which is annoying. And condo living fucking sucks.
I've talked about it a few times in chat, but let's talk about the Toronto housing market for a second.
So we bought a house last year in the area. This isn't our situation exactly, but I think it's illustrative of the problem here. Imagine you are a couple, no debt, making exactly 6 figures, with the standard down payment available. You are looking for a 3 bedroom house. You will take a townhouse easily (ie - the cheapest kind of house). 2015 this would mean you were priced out of basically any community closer then 45 minutes from the border of Toronto. Literally you just couldn't move closer then that and at that distance houses will be snapped up literally within hours. If a house lasts more then 24 hours, it's because the owners are holding off on offers to start a bidding war. That's the market as it exists.
Then this year, just a few weeks ago, our neighbour sold her house. Literally identical to ours. We didn't even get to snoop during the open house because it sold within a day on a bully offer. For over asking. By a lot. The price she sold at compared to the price we paid only a year earlier for a literally (and I mean literally) identical house? ~50% more. We were fucking blown away.
The market is insane. It's always been fucking pricey but it's been going up by in crazy ways for several years now and this last year in particular, judging from some browsing of MLS listings, has been like twice as crazy as usual.
Though interestingly it seems to depend on the house size. I feel like it's the low end that's really getting insane, at least in my area. The larger houses have gone up in price but it's the smaller houses that went up insane amounts. I wonder if it's just people being priced out or something.
But part of it may be one of the big things I've noticed that I think, at least personally, is a major source of the current problem: there are no starter homes. They don't build them. They barely exist in a lot of areas and anywhere new houses are being built they don't seem to exist either. Builders only care about making a buck and big houses are more profitable per land area. And they aren't just not building them but in the city and such they are actively being destroyed. Older smaller homes are bought and virtually always torn down and replaced with a newer, larger home because the location is way more valuable then the building itself. I think this skews prices upwards by increasing the average size of the home in the area and by forcing people who do want a small new house to bid each other up to get them. And so young families looking for a first home have a ton of difficulty finding anything.
It can't be good for demographics and such either. Young people are essentially being priced out of the city and the nearby areas all together. Nobody I know can afford to move anywhere near the city when they want to buy. Most of the sales in the city around the neighbourhoods I know people in go to older (40+) upper middle class established families.
I come from a construction background and have had a few conversations on the subject.
for builders, stater homes are the least profitable thing they can built. It's usually very low margin basic "spec" home with no upgrades or additions (finished basement's, garages etc.. ).
Alternatively, condos are massively profitable as even if you are selling "spec" you make up for it by how quickly you can build a unit (in aggregate) vs a single family starter and also you are sometimes building 20 - 100 units in a building.
But the real money is in the Step up or estate homes. People that buy those never go spec and upgrade nearly every single thing from light fixtures to banisters to appliances and you are making very decent profit on all of those. In Toronto's market where demand massively trumps supply there is zzero economic reason to build a starter home when you can build something more profitable. The plot sizes are only negligibly bigger lately as well.
The goverment has in it's power to mandate builders to construct or offer certain types of homes but let's not forget that they also make a cut of these sales in taxes and that the municipalities are more than happy to collect your property tax on a 900K home versus 300K.
And in a purely logical sense if you build 10 x 5 million dollar single family homes or 10 x starter 300K homes you are still housing the same exact number of people. Now, this can only continue for so long and is totally bonkers but look at bc's 20+ year run of thinking this is sound economics.
Yup. I know why they don't build them, but it's still a big issue. And it's not just about density is the thing, it's about demographics and the ability of people to build wealth.
Also depending on where you are there can be large differences in lot size. Larger homes in the suburbs often come in like "estate subdivisions" where the lots are bigger and so are the houses.
My store got a robocall from Michael Chong because fun fact, corporate phone numbers can't be registered for the DNC list.
It's just like, dude. Even if I were conservative, robocalls are not going to work out well for you.
Unless these are robocalls being run by one of his opponents to make him look like a d-bag.
Given that some cities are out of reach price wise for your average person/family how can the government help make other places more attractive?
Basically how can we create more Toronto's or Vancouver's?
Even in market crashes, places that we're talking about will just level out. Shits not going to get cheaper so what do we do to build the rest of this country up?
I think it's natural that families want kids, a dog and a yard and that doesn't make them awful people. The fact is that getting something like that in a major metro area these days is just not possible anymore.
Decentralization.
It's natural to want to live near the area of the city where your job is, where businesses and services are located, where activities and bars and parks are found. In many cities that's the downtown core. That creates a high demand for housing near the downtown area. Which in turn gives you the conundrum: buy an overpriced property where you want to live, or buy a cheap property and suffer long commutes.
By decentralizing, you create multiple "districts". Multiple malls and commercial areas, several government service hubs, one or two popular bar streets, etc. People will want to live near the one that is most convenient for them, which will spread demand in multiple areas of the city and limit potential for one "hot spot". Allow a very efficient highway system between the various districts for faster transit and you further reduce pressure to live in one specific area.
This only does so much. Toronto already has this. Not everyone is going downtown. In fact these days the traffic out of the city in certain directions is just as bad as that into the city in the morning and vice versa in the evening. Frankly there's a ton of industries where you'll never work downtown because there's not the room for the type of industry. People still want to live near the city or in the city and the jobs don't have to be anywhere near downtown to still be within the metro area.
Toronto's various suburbs are trying to establish themselves as secondary hubs. It remains to be seen how successful it'll be. There is a substantial "jobs zone" around Pearson, but it's stuck at light zoning levels, because... you know, airport. My best bet is that Vaughan is probably most likely to succeed, using the new subway extension and the 407+400 interchange as key transportation infrastructure. Mississauga and Markham seem more interested in lower-density, walkable residential/commercial downtowns, but Vaughan's going full corporate.
We just bought a condo in Abbotsford (it's low-rise and a bit older so our suite is spacious, building is well-taken-care-of with a solid board, so about as good as condo living gets) and are pretty sure we're getting in just in time. The foreign buyer's tax hasn't cooled down the "lower" (ha) end of the market at all. New Vancouver condos are going for over a million, forget single-family homes. Prices are skyrocketing in Langley (which was borderline reasonable when we moved out here a year and a half ago), crappy old single-family homes hover around 500k in Abbotsford, Chilliwack will be there soon, and apparently freakin' HOPE is now where people are buying homes as investments with the expectation that their value will skyrocket. For those of you unfamiliar with Lower Mainland BC, that's spreading out eastward from downtown Vancouver, and Hope is in the middle of nowhere.
If we end up getting an influx of tech companies trying to avoid Trump's immigration policies, we'll be completely screwed on housing prices.
SwashbucklerXX on
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
I lucked out as we got into a condo during a "pause" in the hot market in Victoria and after 5 years there and a lot of saving we got lucky again in 2012 and found a detached house during another "slump" which was just basically a slowdown in the price jumps.
After 4 years the appraised value was $165,000 more than what we bought it for which is just Fucking stupid. If we hadn't been lucky there would be no way to get into a detached home in Victoria today.
I guess what I'm saying is that in certain places it's literally a lost cause unless you get rich or super lucky.
I like the decentralization stuff and I would hope govt. Can help figure out how to encourage development of other communities.
These stories are making me feel quite lucky about my SW Ontario rural-ish location. While the area I live in is elevated in comparison to the surroundings (due to being a tourist town), it's still quite attainable, and there's plenty of starter-style homes to purchase.
Course we have to drive 25 minutes to get to a major city, but it's not so bad.
0
Options
Sir FabulousMalevolent Squid GodRegistered Userregular
On the silver lining of the Toronto housing market, way more businesses are buying into Hamilton and the restaurant scene has taken off incredibly in the last few years. I eat like a king now.
Of course, I hear that property owners are getting wise and leases are starting to skyrocket...
That's good to hear that businesses are getting wise and buying into smaller communities if they can make it work.
I imagine having a smaller community makes "company shopping" less prevalent and tenure/retention is better.
I guess that's a double edged sword too, you could treat your employees like shit and they won't have choices.
That said, it doesn't seem to stop a lot of employers even when there are other choices
In Vancouver, just got notice to end my rental condo tenancy in a couple months. Not looking forward to another round of finding a new place as a single income with a dog in a <1% vacancy rate market.
I could maybe look at purchasing a real basic bachelor or 1 bdrm condo but I absolutely do not want to get invested in the housing market at that level here
We're in Garrison Woods in Calgary, and while our particular neighborhood is relatively stable for construction and our house was in beat-up-enough condition when we moved in to be affordable, nextdoor Altadore is slowly but surely having all the old bungalows knocked down and turned into side-by-side 800k+ new infills.
So theoretically it increases population density, but it certainly doesn't provide a way for anyone to get started in the housing market.
Posts
Well, they are definitely continuing the long tradition of overestimating how much royalty money will be coming in.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-budget-depending-on-oil-and-pipelines-1.4028138
That's a 45 billion dollar deficit projecting 68$ oil. Not sure what alternate reality they live in but we are still 2-3 years away at the soonest before we see a climb that high.
We are sitting currently at 48$ and sliding..
So more accurately we are going to see a 60-65$ billion deficit and the highest in Alberta's history by a wide margin. It's like they are actively trying to not get reelected.
Even banning foreign ownership would have little impact.
Its simply a case of high demand & ultra low borrowing costs that is pushing prices out of reach.
Interestingly, I've seen the opposite problem in Québec City. Older bigger homes on large plots of land and being bought and torn down and replaced by multiple smaller houses or semis. I haven't checked what it does for prices, but it's doing a mess on traffic in those areas. Our town is also on the verge of a condo bubble popping IMO. Those things have been going up like mushrooms for years, and now we have entire neighbourhoods of identical 6-block and 8-block condos with "for sale" signs in front of each one.
I come from a construction background and have had a few conversations on the subject.
for builders, stater homes are the least profitable thing they can built. It's usually very low margin basic "spec" home with no upgrades or additions (finished basement's, garages etc.. ).
Alternatively, condos are massively profitable as even if you are selling "spec" you make up for it by how quickly you can build a unit (in aggregate) vs a single family starter and also you are sometimes building 20 - 100 units in a building.
But the real money is in the Step up or estate homes. People that buy those never go spec and upgrade nearly every single thing from light fixtures to banisters to appliances and you are making very decent profit on all of those. In Toronto's market where demand massively trumps supply there is zzero economic reason to build a starter home when you can build something more profitable. The plot sizes are only negligibly bigger lately as well.
The goverment has in it's power to mandate builders to construct or offer certain types of homes but let's not forget that they also make a cut of these sales in taxes and that the municipalities are more than happy to collect your property tax on a 900K home versus 300K.
And in a purely logical sense if you build 10 x 5 million dollar single family homes or 10 x starter 300K homes you are still housing the same exact number of people. Now, this can only continue for so long and is totally bonkers but look at bc's 20+ year run of thinking this is sound economics.
I know a lot of people have dreams of having their own yards etc, but at a certain point, that is what public parks are for.
MWO: Adamski
The 68$ a barrel oil is predicted for 2019, but yes, it's optimistic.
The 55$ a barrel oil for this year is based on a consensus of estimates, with a 500 million dollar cushion built in, in case prices slide.
Again, though, where do you cut? Because your options are - cut services, new taxes, run a deficit.
There's not a lot of fat in that budget. It's maintaining basic services and a few desperately needed capital projects.
One option that a lot of people have started floating is a sales tax, but, honestly - how do you think Albertans would react to an HST?
Stater homes are nearly have the same density as step up's fyi.
Condo's are great as long as you don't have dogs, kids, don't have a condo board full of retired busy bodies, condo fee's that suddenly spike by 50%, "special assessment's" of 22K out of the blue or happen to have some that are built out of cardboard.
Personal experience but fuck condo living.
Every person I know who's lived in a condo has had issues.
In one case, the condo board head embezzled all the money from the fund and disappeared.
In another, they built the condos to architectural specs from California without accounting for the fact that, in Edmonton, Snow Exists.
I can see the headlines now "NDP strangle the Alberta Advantage in its crib with HST"
For sure.
My problem with the NDP is they are absolutely terrible at marketing that. Now all the people that were already not super happy with them have a quiver full of new ammo to use against them.
I think the NDP getting one term and one term only has been a forgone conclusion since the election.
I just hope Alberta doesn't end up with the Wildrose.....
Honestly, though, while I normally agree that the NDP is bad at communication, they've been pretty up front about this particular budget.
The problem, unfortunately, is that the media coverage in Alberta is always going to skew right, and 'yeah the budget sucks but there's not really a better option' isn't going to sell as many papers as 'doom and gloom'.
It's a shitty situation, brought on by decades of financial mismanagement, and there's no path out of it that isn't going to be painful as all hell.
I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I personally don't find the NDP are doing a great job ( but not the worst party EVARRR like a lot of the loud morlocks are screaming), can't vote Wildrose because I'm not crazy xenophobic and/or really in love with Jesus and the conservatives are just bad.
Our Liberal party is kinda of a joke atm as well.
What liberal party
Poor Dr. David Swann.. sorry thats MLA... we have 4 Liberal MPs :sad:
Alberta Party seems reasonable, at least.
Otherwise, yeah. It's slim pickings.
Foreign buyers tax hasn't brought prices down really (99% of houses in City of Vancouver proper are over 1 million still), but has slowed the market a bit for single family homes. Entry level condos are still going nuts because in most of Metro Vancouver that is all most people can afford. The tax also only applies in Metro Vancouver, so the Victoria market has seen some deflection of interest.
Also, GTA and Seattle markets went nuts after foreign buyers tax brought in here, so make of that what you will.
Basically how can we create more Toronto's or Vancouver's?
Even in market crashes, places that we're talking about will just level out. Shits not going to get cheaper so what do we do to build the rest of this country up?
I think it's natural that families want kids, a dog and a yard and that doesn't make them awful people. The fact is that getting something like that in a major metro area these days is just not possible anymore.
Surprised I didnt hear more about this when the immigration bans to the US first went through.
MWO: Adamski
Ehh...
I have many friends in the tech sector looking for jobs that have very strong opinions on this subject.
Decentralization.
It's natural to want to live near the area of the city where your job is, where businesses and services are located, where activities and bars and parks are found. In many cities that's the downtown core. That creates a high demand for housing near the downtown area. Which in turn gives you the conundrum: buy an overpriced property where you want to live, or buy a cheap property and suffer long commutes.
By decentralizing, you create multiple "districts". Multiple malls and commercial areas, several government service hubs, one or two popular bar streets, etc. People will want to live near the one that is most convenient for them, which will spread demand in multiple areas of the city and limit potential for one "hot spot". Allow a very efficient highway system between the various districts for faster transit and you further reduce pressure to live in one specific area.
Thanks, that's what I was getting at but couldn't articulate.
Has anyone done this successfully? UK?
The only issue with that is that it's nearly impossible to do that without starting from scratch.
Calgary is currently experimenting with creating a 2nd "hub" away from downtown.
http://www.setonurbandistrict.com/
For those not aware Calgary has about the size of New York with a laughingly small population density.
http://mapfrappe.com/?show=46414
I like walkable neighborhoods with actual stores nearby, I had that when I rented and lived just off 17th ave. Quick walk to the Co-op, Kalamata Groceries was a block or two away was great, would walk to work every morning.
Now I am in the last bit of West Hillhurst before it turns into Parkdale, crowchild trail is right there, we have a 7/11, a vet, some tax place, Pizza Bobs (which is hit or miss) a horse store and more recently a Co-Op liquor store, all in walking distance. Lots more in biking distance or short drive away. Need a better pub, and a grocery store.
Calgary is a car city, though. Riding transit took so much time out of my day. When I got into an accident and my car was unavailable for a while, a 20 minute car trip was over an hour by bus.
Careful with pizza bobs. My friends and I game in kensington and used to order there till we all got food poisoning one night. called to mention that to them and got hung up on.
That horse store is so weird! K-pub nearby is pretty great as is the regal beagle.
yea Bobs is .. yea.. i've had decent pizza there but it is all thin crust and 99% of the time I dont want thin crust (thank goodness Gus's Pizza is just up the hill) . Its a bit of a dive too which I don't mind a good dive bar can be great but its so hit or miss. Haven't been back there in over a year. Love the K-Pub, just wish it was in walking distance.
This only does so much. Toronto already has this. Not everyone is going downtown. In fact these days the traffic out of the city in certain directions is just as bad as that into the city in the morning and vice versa in the evening. Frankly there's a ton of industries where you'll never work downtown because there's not the room for the type of industry. People still want to live near the city or in the city and the jobs don't have to be anywhere near downtown to still be within the metro area.
We used to have this in my parents neighbourhood actually. Usually it was old auto-shops or gas stations (basically places that couldn't easily be converted to another commercial use) that were torn down and replaced by like 10 townhouses or something ridiculous like that.
That's mostly stopped now. Now they buy old houses, tear them down and replace them with larger houses and do this at a profit. Or they build fucking masses of condos. The condos are the worse of the two for anyone already living there since there's no upgrade in infrastructure for the increase in population density so the traffic just becomes fucking abominable. The city seems to think everyone will take the subway or the TTC but this completely misses what I'm talking about above, which is that most of these people don't work downtown. Often they commute out of the city.
Downtown is turning into a mass of condos too and you can basically no longer see the lake a lot of places which is annoying. And condo living fucking sucks.
Yup. I know why they don't build them, but it's still a big issue. And it's not just about density is the thing, it's about demographics and the ability of people to build wealth.
Also depending on where you are there can be large differences in lot size. Larger homes in the suburbs often come in like "estate subdivisions" where the lots are bigger and so are the houses.
It's just like, dude. Even if I were conservative, robocalls are not going to work out well for you.
Unless these are robocalls being run by one of his opponents to make him look like a d-bag.
Toronto's various suburbs are trying to establish themselves as secondary hubs. It remains to be seen how successful it'll be. There is a substantial "jobs zone" around Pearson, but it's stuck at light zoning levels, because... you know, airport. My best bet is that Vaughan is probably most likely to succeed, using the new subway extension and the 407+400 interchange as key transportation infrastructure. Mississauga and Markham seem more interested in lower-density, walkable residential/commercial downtowns, but Vaughan's going full corporate.
Dunno if it'll work out. To be seen, I suppose.
If we end up getting an influx of tech companies trying to avoid Trump's immigration policies, we'll be completely screwed on housing prices.
After 4 years the appraised value was $165,000 more than what we bought it for which is just Fucking stupid. If we hadn't been lucky there would be no way to get into a detached home in Victoria today.
I guess what I'm saying is that in certain places it's literally a lost cause unless you get rich or super lucky.
I like the decentralization stuff and I would hope govt. Can help figure out how to encourage development of other communities.
P.s. Fuck condo living.
Course we have to drive 25 minutes to get to a major city, but it's not so bad.
Of course, I hear that property owners are getting wise and leases are starting to skyrocket...
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
I imagine having a smaller community makes "company shopping" less prevalent and tenure/retention is better.
I guess that's a double edged sword too, you could treat your employees like shit and they won't have choices.
That said, it doesn't seem to stop a lot of employers even when there are other choices
I could maybe look at purchasing a real basic bachelor or 1 bdrm condo but I absolutely do not want to get invested in the housing market at that level here
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
So theoretically it increases population density, but it certainly doesn't provide a way for anyone to get started in the housing market.