In District of #NorthVan, 1780 people live alone in single family homes. 11% of single family homes. I'm unsure what to think about that . .
Obviously each home represents a specific story. My mom, now 89, sold the big old family home and bought a great, small, bungalow in Kelowna, and expects to live there til she dies. Or until the ever increasing Hydro rates finally overtake the never-increasing CPP and OAS pensions she lives on.
13 comments:
Go get those darn single people including those blasted widows!! They shouldn't be allowed to own houses!!
Am I doing it right Bond?
To be fair, neither Bond nor anyone else suggested forcing people out of their homes. He does though raise some interesting questions.
What's the impact on housing stock and affordability if a small group of people own a large part of your housing stock? And why are these presumed retirees staying in an increasingly expensive to maintain single family home? At what point do rising costs exceed fixed retirement income?
Is there housing that could be built that would better suit the specific needs of these singletons? Or are these people "holding" their property with the expectation that a child will inherit it?
Or, if they are mostly retirees, what is the impact of all of those property tax rebates and deferrals?
We have lots of seniors serviced housing in North Van, but what we are missing is independent living units that are relatively unserviced. That cruising generation of younger seniors doesn't need the full service, meals included, laundry/housekeeping included facilities. They cost thousands a month, and when you go to Florida for a month in winter who want to be paying for both? Unserviced Seniors units like the Atrium on Parkgate Blvd. are badly needed in each town centre.
"And why are these presumed retirees staying in an increasingly expensive to maintain single family home"
Because they OWN IT and they want to LIVE IN IT Barry-o.
None of your business or anyone else's why they do that.
As most of these people are senior, they will be vacating the premises soon enough and because the boomer demographic is large, that will be sufficient to transfer single family living to the next generation of buyers. And yes, they may be transferring that ownership to their offspring. You got a problem with that Barry?
4:45pm, chill out. There's nothing wrong with asking questions. Nobody is suggesting anyone has to move, downsize, or develop. It's a discussion to explore possibilities. If it offends you, don't participate. But don't try to stop people from having the discussion.
"None of your business or anyone else's why they do that."
Alright, I'll bite. If our housing supply is not meeting the needs of our residents then it is our business. If there is a reason why they are choosing not to move then maybe we can help address the reason.
I went to the all-candidates meeting in Seymour last night and the green party candidate spoke well, but he thinks adding to the property transfer tax will somehow make properties cheaper. It won't, but more importantly it actually dissuades a person from moving into housing that is more appropriate for their needs. When a senior accumulates deferred taxes, and looks at the cost of real estate fees, plus a massively hiked property transfer tax and potentially a capital gains hit if they have a second property, then they are less likely to sell due to the equity hit, and stay in the property way beyond its suitability for them. Which is their choice, but that doesn't mean we can't look at ways to make it easier for a person to move into more suitable housing.
Stop the foreign investment into properties, but don't punish local residents to the point that they are incentivized to stay in unsuitable housing.
anon 6:32, you said:
'4:45pm, chill out. There's nothing wrong with asking questions. Nobody is suggesting anyone has to move, downsize, or develop. It's a discussion to explore possibilities. If it offends you, don't participate. But 'don't try to stop people from having the discussion.'
1. There's nothing wrong with asking questions.
Agreed. Nothing wrong with answering them either which is exactly my post was. Of course it seems you don't LIKE my answer and that is at the core of your post..but...tough titty I say.
2. If it offends you, don't participate.
Now what was that you said about...mmm..oh yes..'don't try to stop people from having the discussion' was how you put it.
Please reread your post above.
Done that? Now maybe you should read my post again and 'chill out'.
Sorry 1:25 but you're not making any sense whatsoever. You started a rant against the op and were told to chill. All you're doing is whining and not actually contributing to the discussion in any constructive way. Take your populist crap elsewhere.
"Because they OWN IT and they want to LIVE IN IT Barry-o."
'Own it', yes, but 'want to live in it', that may be debatable. There are many reasons why someone may stay in a detached house, and sometimes it isn't because they are loving it.
They may be afraid of being taken advantage of
They may not like the housing options that are available in their neighborhood
They may be afraid of making a bad financial decision
They may feel safe and comfortable even though something smaller may actually be safer and more comfortable
They may be self conscious that downsizing may signal getting old
There are probably a hundred distinct reasons why someone may not want to move, but don't assume it is because they are satisfied with where they are.
They also may be getting pressure from their children who want to protect the asset... it happens.
"There are probably a hundred distinct reasons why someone may not want to move, but don't assume it is because they are satisfied with where they are."
Don't assume it's any of your f@@@ing business.
You won't save the planet evicting old folks from their homes. Pardon, I meant 'encouraging single family home owners to reevaluate'.
Now you're being disingenuous. Nobody is proposing evictions or telling anyone they have to move. Stop being an ass.
If you want to stay in your house, that's great. But it doesn't hurt having the discussion that addresses the fact that the SFH isn't always the best option for everyone. Unfortunately, there is a lack of desirable housing options for downsizing. Not everyone wants a condo. For some, a townhouse or duplex is more appealing. We need more of those options.
A bit late to the dance, this comment, but perhaps Councillor Bond's thinking was following the lines of Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps who has floated the idea that people with spare rooms should billet the homeless.
Helps:
“What if Victorians responded in the same way to this crisis? What if there was a way to connect people living in vehicles, in motel rooms, on couches, with seniors living in large houses all alone, with retirees with an extra bedroom, or even with families with large houses and extra rooms,” she wrote.
Of course, as is often seen in these sorts of things ( and especially where politicians are involved), it's brilliant for some seniors living in what might be judged too big a house. But not for her,though.
Post a Comment