Elias Pettersson Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 2 hours ago, King Heffy said: Looks like the Airbnb crackdown is working as intended. Actually it’s having the opposite effect. All those new listings mean that those properties will be sold to buyers, taking all of them off the market for renters. So the supply of homes for rent will DECREASE not increase. Exactly the opposite of what the government intended. But everyone who understands real estate already knew this was going to happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 8 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Actually it’s having the opposite effect. All those new listings mean that those properties will be sold to buyers, taking all of them off the market for renters. So the supply of homes for rent will DECREASE not increase. Exactly the opposite of what the government intended. But everyone who understands real estate already knew this was going to happen. But everyone who understands real estate. ..... The immediate impact of this policy initiative is evident in the rental market data. In October, British Columbia witnessed a 21% increase in listing volume compared to September, with the city of Vancouver experiencing a substantial 46% increase in total listings. These figures defy typical seasonal trends, which would expect a decline in listings during October. https://www.rentsync.com/resources/blog/the-impact-of-recent-short-term-housing-legislation-on-bcs-rental-landscape 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 6 minutes ago, Warhippy said: But everyone who understands real estate. ..... The immediate impact of this policy initiative is evident in the rental market data. In October, British Columbia witnessed a 21% increase in listing volume compared to September, with the city of Vancouver experiencing a substantial 46% increase in total listings. These figures defy typical seasonal trends, which would expect a decline in listings during October. https://www.rentsync.com/resources/blog/the-impact-of-recent-short-term-housing-legislation-on-bcs-rental-landscape That article is from January. They are using numbers from last October. The short term rental legislation only took effect today so how can they know 7 months in advance how the rental market will be? Also, this is straight from the article: While this influx has impacted average market rents, with a reported -3.7% month-over-month decline in Vancouver and a -0.6% decline in the province of British Columbia (Source: October Rent Report by rentals.ca and Urbanation), the long-term trajectory of rents remains largely unchanged. This is because the policy does not address structural issues in the long-term supply of new units. Increased listing volume will affect lead generation in the short term, but given the strong demand and low vacancy rates in major BC markets, this is expected to be a temporary phenomenon. Once these newly introduced units are leased, vacancy rates are likely to remain at record levels, and availability will continue to be limited. So basically this legislation in the long term will have ZERO effect on the supply of rental homes. Additionally, a large percentage of homes that were formally on the Airbnb sites will be put up for sale and sold to buyers, further depleting the rental inventory. At current mortgage rates it’s almost impossible for investors to cash flow on their rental units so ultimately they will just end up selling them off. This will help the resale market and first time buyers will have more inventory to choose from so I could see an increase in supply on the sales side which may help stabilize prices in the short term. Until interest rates drop of course. Then that changes everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: That article is from January. They are using numbers from last October. The short term rental legislation only took effect today so how can they know 7 months in advance how the rental market will be? Also, this is straight from the article: While this influx has impacted average market rents, with a reported -3.7% month-over-month decline in Vancouver and a -0.6% decline in the province of British Columbia (Source: October Rent Report by rentals.ca and Urbanation), the long-term trajectory of rents remains largely unchanged. This is because the policy does not address structural issues in the long-term supply of new units. Increased listing volume will affect lead generation in the short term, but given the strong demand and low vacancy rates in major BC markets, this is expected to be a temporary phenomenon. Once these newly introduced units are leased, vacancy rates are likely to remain at record levels, and availability will continue to be limited. So basically this legislation in the long term will have ZERO effect on the supply of rental homes. Additionally, a large percentage of homes that were formally on the Airbnb sites will be put up for sale and sold to buyers, further depleting the rental inventory. At current mortgage rates it’s almost impossible for investors to cash flow on their rental units so ultimately they will just end up selling them off. This will help the resale market and first time buyers will have more inventory to choose from so I could see an increase in supply on the sales side which may help stabilize prices in the short term. Until interest rates drop of course. Then that changes everything. So go back and look at the overall increase of listings in Victoria and Vancouver after the announcement of this legislation 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 55 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Actually it’s having the opposite effect. All those new listings mean that those properties will be sold to buyers, taking all of them off the market for renters. So the supply of homes for rent will DECREASE not increase. Exactly the opposite of what the government intended. But everyone who understands real estate already knew this was going to happen. And those buyers can either live there or rent it out. Either way it's a positive change. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 4 hours ago, Bob Long said: So does the ndp have a plan to grow our economy ? That's debatable. So vote conservative and see how that works out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, Warhippy said: So go back and look at the overall increase of listings in Victoria and Vancouver after the announcement of this legislation As per the article those increases were only temporary and now that that inventory has been taken up the vacancy rates are back to where they were prior to the new legislation being announced. The issue with eliminating short term rentals in condos and strata is that investors were relying on that income to cash flow. A 2 bedroom condo downtown was generating $6-7k per month in income with Airbnb. Even with the rise in interest rates, that amount still allowed investors to cash flow. Now that these same people have to rent out their units on a normal yearly lease arrangement their revenue has been cut in half. Therefore, they can no longer cash flow and some, if not many, are simply going to sell their properties and effectively take the rental unit off the market. This is going to DECREASE rental inventory and have the OPPOSITE effect of what the legislation was supposed to do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 55 minutes ago, King Heffy said: And those buyers can either live there or rent it out. Either way it's a positive change. Buyers aren't going to rent out a condo they plan to live in. That defeats the whole purpose of buying the condo. I'm not actually totally against eliminating short term rentals in stratified units. The problem I have is the new legislation will not have the intended outcome that everyone thinks it's going to have. The government is giving out false hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said: Buyers aren't going to rent out a condo they plan to live in. That defeats the whole purpose of buying the condo. I'm not actually totally against eliminating short term rentals in stratified units. The problem I have is the new legislation will not have the intended outcome that everyone thinks it's going to have. The government is giving out false hope. So they're buying a place, which takes them out of another rental. Either way, it's increasing the supply of housing by taking it away from parasites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 8 hours ago, The Arrogant Worms said: So vote conservative and see how that works out. The ndp shouldn't get a free pass because of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 9 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: Buyers aren't going to rent out a condo they plan to live in. That defeats the whole purpose of buying the condo. I'm not actually totally against eliminating short term rentals in stratified units. The problem I have is the new legislation will not have the intended outcome that everyone thinks it's going to have. The government is giving out false hope. We need HOUSING, not just rental housing. This has increased the supply of available housing to purchase. The sheer amount of available units for sale is already putting some downward pressure on prices as well. The government is addressing rental units via other means (like the announcement earlier in this thread for more low income housing). Not every move is going to fix EVERYTHING, right NOW. Make small, incremental improvements over multiple areas, and over time, improve the overall situation. "False hope"... Come on... Edited May 2 by aGENT 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6of1_halfdozenofother Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 4 minutes ago, aGENT said: We need HOUSING, not just rental housing. This has increased the supply of available housing to purchase. The sheer amount of available units for sale is already putting some downward pressure on prices as well. The government is addressing rental units via other means (like the announcement earlier in this thread for more low income housing). Not every move is going to fix EVERYTHING, right NOW. Make small, incremental improvements over multiple areas, and over time, improve the overall situation. "False hope"... Come on... Shhh... he's on a roll. Let him continue to think that those who are buying couldn't possibly be people who are exiting the rental market to own their own home. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 2 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said: Shhh... he's on a roll. Let him continue to think that those who are buying couldn't possibly be people who are exiting the rental market to own their own home. I keep waiting for the "I know a guy" portion of the debate..... This is generally when we see, "My buddy bought six condos last year and he plans to live in all of them, soooooo......." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 8 hours ago, King Heffy said: So they're buying a place, which takes them out of another rental. Either way, it's increasing the supply of housing by taking it away from parasites. Who said all these people are renting? You think every first time home buyer is a renter? Also there are lots of people who share accommodation then move out on their own. So that place doesn’t become a new rental afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 3 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: I keep waiting for the "I know a guy" portion of the debate..... This is generally when we see, "My buddy bought six condos last year and he plans to live in all of them, soooooo......." I, for one really appreciate the use of "so" as it is perfectly on point for that poster. Plus +10 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 27 minutes ago, aGENT said: We need HOUSING, not just rental housing. This has increased the supply of available housing to purchase. The sheer amount of available units for sale is already putting some downward pressure on prices as well. The government is addressing rental units via other means (like the announcement earlier in this thread for more low income housing). Not every move is going to fix EVERYTHING, right NOW. Make small, incremental improvements over multiple areas, and over time, improve the overall situation. "False hope"... Come on... Inventory levels in October 2023 for the GVRD were at 11,599 total units. That’s when the announcement came out. Today, inventory levels are at 11,803. So inventory levels and supply have not changed at all. A small increase on Vancouver Island doesn’t change anything. Once rates start to drop again then sales activity will increase substantially. And supply will shrink again like it always does. Like I mentioned already I am not actually against this legislation. But it’s not the win everyone thinks it is. Based on the last 7 month’s inventory levels in the GVRD, the needle hasn’t been moved at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 10 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: As per the article those increases were only temporary and now that that inventory has been taken up the vacancy rates are back to where they were prior to the new legislation being announced. The issue with eliminating short term rentals in condos and strata is that investors were relying on that income to cash flow. A 2 bedroom condo downtown was generating $6-7k per month in income with Airbnb. Even with the rise in interest rates, that amount still allowed investors to cash flow. Now that these same people have to rent out their units on a normal yearly lease arrangement their revenue has been cut in half. Therefore, they can no longer cash flow and some, if not many, are simply going to sell their properties and effectively take the rental unit off the market. This is going to DECREASE rental inventory and have the OPPOSITE effect of what the legislation was supposed to do... As per my last comment..... Look mate. You're creating the argument that someone who bought an investment property they couldn't afford without charging usurious rental rates or using air bnb as a main stay deserves my sympathy. Not gonna happen. Live within your means. If you can't afford it don't buy it. Oh, those rental units will be off the market? They were never rental units to begin with though, only air bnb units people needed to monetize to afford As per the actual numbers. This legislation was announced, rental and sales listings went up immediately. They got sold or rented. That took that initial supply off the market. This will happen again. People will rent or buy the units that cannot be monetized. Once those units are gone, more supply will be needed. It's how the system works in an infinite growth society. But what do I know. I just don't understand real estate like some of you Edited May 2 by Warhippy 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 10 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: As per the article those increases were only temporary and now that that inventory has been taken up the vacancy rates are back to where they were prior to the new legislation being announced. The issue with eliminating short term rentals in condos and strata is that investors were relying on that income to cash flow. A 2 bedroom condo downtown was generating $6-7k per month in income with Airbnb. Even with the rise in interest rates, that amount still allowed investors to cash flow. Now that these same people have to rent out their units on a normal yearly lease arrangement their revenue has been cut in half. Therefore, they can no longer cash flow and some, if not many, are simply going to sell their properties and effectively take the rental unit off the market. This is going to DECREASE rental inventory and have the OPPOSITE effect of what the legislation was supposed to do... Fuck, you sold me! That's awesome. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 5 minutes ago, Warhippy said: As per my last comment..... Look mate. You're creating the argument that someone who bought an investment property they couldn't afford without charging usurious rental rates or using air bnb as a main stay deserves my sympathy. Not gonna happen. Live within your means. If you can't afford it don't buy it. Oh, those rental units will be off the market? They were never rental units to begin with though, only air bnb units people needed to monetize to afford As per the actual numbers. This legislation was announced, rental and sales listings went up immediately. They got sold or rented. That took that initial supply off the market. This will happen again. People will rent or buy the units that cannot be monetized. Once those units are gone, more supply will be needed. It's how the system works in an infinite growth society. But what do I know. I just don't understand real estate like some of you Well technically those units "were" affordable at the time they bought them, or else they never would have gotten approved for financing. The unaffordability came afterwards when rates increased by 300%. The only way to cash flow those properties was to Airbnb them really. People used to be able to buy an investment property and keep it for their retirement. Not everyone has a pension plan to retire on. Most small business owners have to rely on other means to retire. Real estate investing was one way to do this. It's no longer the case. Supply goes up, and supply goes down. That's the way it works. Supply is finite though, so unless developers are building thousands of new homes, the cycle will continue. Getting rid of Airbnb only frees up condos that have already been built. It does nothing to address the actual supply of NEW homes. Also, people will find new ways to increase rental incomes. It's not uncommon for 4-5 students to live together in a 2 bedroom condo. There is no load capacity bylaw with any municipality. So investors will get their money this way. They already are. Take a trip to downtown Vancouver and ask students their living arrangements. You will see that this is the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rook Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 11 hours ago, The Arrogant Worms said: So vote conservative and see how that works out. If they didn’t have such a moron for a leader that may be possible, but as in most elections one should vote for the lesser of two evils Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 2 minutes ago, Rook said: If they didn’t have such a moron for a leader that may be possible, but as in most elections one should vote for the lesser of two evils I don't like the BC con's, but the free pass the NDP gets isn't great either. Look at their bungling of the Olympics, eg.,we could have had the first aboriginal led games, but they claimed it was too much money. Now they are going to throw nearly 600 million at a FIFA event instead. Disgusting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, Bob Long said: I don't like the BC con's, but the free pass the NDP gets isn't great either. Look at their bungling of the Olympics, eg.,we could have had the first aboriginal led games, but they claimed it was too much money. Now they are going to throw nearly 600 million at a FIFA event instead. Disgusting. You're talking to a guy who helped build the final wing of the billion + dollar convention centre and the almost $600 million upgrade to BC place. These were government funded but not taxpayer owned. The grift is real 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Greater Vancouver home sales rise as inventory reaches levels not seen since pandemic https://bc.ctvnews.ca/greater-vancouver-home-sales-rise-as-inventory-reaches-levels-not-seen-since-pandemic-1.6870755 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 3 hours ago, Warhippy said: You're talking to a guy who helped build the final wing of the billion + dollar convention centre and the almost $600 million upgrade to BC place. These were government funded but not taxpayer owned. The grift is real I guess I can't see the reasoning behind not backing another BC games led by 4 First Nations groups. I mean what an incredible opportunity for them. Nah, lets do it for FIFA. smh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, Bob Long said: I guess I can't see the reasoning behind not backing another BC games led by 4 First Nations groups. I mean what an incredible opportunity for them. Nah, lets do it for FIFA. smh. Hey, you won't get an argument from me at all. All the money spent/wasted on that convention centre and BC Place. Obscene. For a vanity thing. FIFA, same level of waste for a ridiculous return on the backs of the taxpayers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.