Too much new housing is beyond our reach
Re: “New development can help create a city for everyone,” opinion, July 14.
If new development helps create a city for everyone, why is Victoria building homes unaffordable for the majority of its households?
The “filtering” fable justifies the unfettered global housing boom. Who benefits the most? The real estate/development sector and financial investment industry.
Through the magic of “filtering” and musical chairs, the fortunate get a home, those making “poor choices” do not. Families move up the housing ladder by accumulating sufficient savings allowing them to vacate their older rental premises. Modest-income tenants replace them on a lower rung of the housing ladder.
Some millennials (aged 24-35), indebted by student loans, working three jobs, and living with roommates rely on the bank of Mum and Dad to buy a home. Others will have to wait 50 years for the wonders of “filtering” to make today’s condos affordable!
Three-quarters of Victoria’s older affordable rental housing was built in the 1960s and 1970s. Federal government tax shelters facilitated construction during a recession. Five decades later and with rent control legislation, these units are affordable for seniors on fixed income or others with a median renter household income of $44,165.
Today’s building boom favours affluent retirees and high-income tech workers. Who bears the highest burden of the housing crisis? Thousands of tenants facing soaring rents and eviction as older rental stock is demolished in the name of progress and prosperity for everyone.
There are no silver bullets to end the housing crisis. It benefits few while exacting an excruciating toll on many.
Victoria Adams
Victoria
Unfounded comments about speculation tax
Re: “One in five who pay is from B.C.,” July 12.
Finance Minister Carole James has leaped to many conclusions about the speculation tax, some of which are completely unfounded.
There are many references to “property that is vacant more than six months of the year.”
Nowhere on the spec tax form did it ask that question. Instead it asked if the property was the primary residence.
Those are two completely different questions. A homeowner can have a secondary residence that is occupied for more than six months of the year. The secondary residence could be occupied by the homeowner a month on and a month off.
This is not the kind of occupancy that lends itself to becoming a rental.
James says that if people aren’t paying the tax, it means they are renting their places out. This conclusion is false, because there are multiple exemptions.
And if people do pay the tax, then there is no change to the amount of housing, and what James is taxing is vacation homes and wealth.
It would be interesting to know if any housing became available because of the tax. I suspect not.
Stephen Decarie
Langford
Exempt Canadians from speculation tax
There is no doubt that major Canadian cities are struggling with a housing crisis, especially the international cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. But I am not aware of any city that levies a tax on Canadians similar to the Speculation and Vacancy Tax, which is levied on Canadians living in other provinces.
Many Canadians, mainly seniors, spend a portion or the year in B.C., often in the Vancouver and Victoria area. Some stay in condos that they own, using the property as a type of temporary home. Families are looking for permanent and affordable accommodation, not a six-month rental here then a four-month rental there. Forcing these seniors to rent their condos to escape the SVT would not solve the housing crisis.
Statements about these people who do not pay their fair share of income tax but who enjoy B.C.’s services and high quality of life are misleading, if not confrontational. About one-third of B.C. government income is personal income tax. The SVT paid by senior Canadians from other provinces is a very small part of the government’s income.
About three-quarters of government expenditure is on health and education. Seniors from other provinces do not have children in the education system and do not use the health-care system. (Except on an urgent basis where there is a reciprocal arrangement with other provinces to cover costs.)
They pay to use the ferries. They pay to use transit. They pay for groceries. They do not use any government subsidy. Moreover, they support the arts and often volunteer in their communities.
The property tax rate paid by these seniors is about twice that of senior B.C. residents. I am sure that their presence has an overall beneficial effect on the economy.
Non-resident seniors should not have to pay for services in B.C. that they do not use. They pay sales tax and property tax and gasoline tax and all the other taxes that are levied in B.C. Unlike B.C. residents, they are unable to retrieve their SVT as part of their income tax return.
We celebrated Canada Day at the beginning of July. The application of the SVT to senior Canadians from other provinces contradicts the spirit of this celebration.
The Speculation and Vacancy Tax should be amended to exclude Canadian residents.
David Clarke
Sidney
Councils are responsible for loss of trees
I drove to Courtenay, Parksville, and the Sunshine Coast a couple of times recently. I was dismayed to see multiple housing developments where the first stage was to clear-cut the entire property.
Next they build houses or townhouses so close to each other there is no room for trees. Climate change scientists have told us trees are very important.
Also, we love trees. They are good for our mental health. Imagine Victoria without trees. They are a very important feature of urban development.
We know why the developers want to build this way, they make more money and the job is easier. Why are the local councils allowing this to happen?
They are supposed to be looking after the health of our communities and making them treeless is surely not the best way.
John Miller
Victoria
Words of wisdom about urban trees
Here is a quotation from the book Eating Dirt by Charlotte Gill, a previous professional tree planter.
“As the planet warms, we may come to see clearcuts as an obsolete extravagance. We may wish we’d looked at forests in a different way. Worth more standing than they are lying down, better off as trees than logs.”
To cut down 70 acres of forest would be a great loss to the environment.
Judith Henderson
Duncan
Houses have replaced trees for many decades
I agree that it’s a shame to have to cut down trees to make room for more houses.
But, I just can’t bring myself to complain. I would feel very much a hypocrite by doing so.
When we first moved in to Colwood, in 1960, the area where this house we are now in was all forest and farms. Very few houses.
Now the forest is gone, the farms had to pack it in and it’s all houses. So now the population is growing, quickly, and more houses are needed.
The developers who are able to, and wanting to build these needed houses, are catching hell from all the people now living near these new developments. These same people who are now living in new houses that are sitting on land that was once a forest.
It was once a very good idea for them, but now it’s not a very good idea because now we need these trees. Believe me, we have always needed these trees, even before your house was built, we needed these trees. Somehow, I see a goose and a gander thing in here.
We might not like the way we are progressing. We may not like the way we are having to continually move further into the forested area, but that will not change until we can somehow curtail population growth.
And that will be like trying to stop the tides.
Lyall Eriksen
Colwood
Give us the data to support transit claim
So Saanich Coun. Nathalie Chambers says free buses for youth is a “simple thing … that we could do to get 50 per cent of the cars off the road.” Pray tell, where is the data supporting this?
While transit is continually improving, the population of the Greater Victoria, particularly in the West Shore, is growing much faster than the transportation infrastructure.
Not everyone has access to nearby bus stops or bus schedules that fit with their schedules. Throwing money at freebies while the service itself needs money for service expansion seems ill-conceived.
To get more people out of their cars, there need to be more options: Train, ferry, and bus routes that don’t take many times longer than using one’s car.
Marcia Fay
West Shore
No such thing as free transit
Sigh. So, another municipal politician — this time in Saanich — has come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as “free” transit. Fortunately, an adult in the room mentioned that this “free” benefit would be paid for out of property taxes — not exactly “free” in the real world.
Furthermore, Coun. Nathalie Chambers suggested that this move will help take 50 per cent of cars off the road. Saanich is a large district that is dependent on vehicle traffic for a lot of everyday stuff. I think 50 per cent is a number that even Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps would shy away from.
Did Chambers actually suggest such expenditures when she ran in the last civic election? When I look at the 35-plus per cent increase in my property tax in each of the past two years, I know I certainly won’t be voting for her next time around. And I doubt if I’ll be the only one.
Maybe she would be more comfortable running in Victoria.
Michel Murray
Saanich
Send us your letters
• Email: [email protected]
Letters should be no longer than 250 words and may be edited for length, legality or clarity. Include your full name, address and telephone number. Copyright of letters or other material accepted for publication remains with the author, but the publisher and its licensees may freely reproduce them in print, electronic and other forms.
