Author: Pete Fry

  • Don’t penalize Vancouver seniors for government’s failure to curb runaway housing values

    Don’t penalize Vancouver seniors for government’s failure to curb runaway housing values

    Peter Ladner’s  Sept 14 opinion piece raises an interesting quandary about Vancouver housing prices, the dearth of detached homes, and the notion that taxpayers are subsidizing seniors to take up unused space.

    The idea of an octogenarian rattling around an underutilized, empty-bedroomed $3 million Dunbar bungalow while young families are forced out of the city makes for a convenient if not somewhat mean spirited scapegoat — but let’s take another look:

    Let’s imagine that an 80-year-old and her husband purchased their bungalow 40 years ago when the B.C. property tax deferment program was started. In 1985, interest rates were 13.25 per cent, purchase required a 25 per cent downpayment and the average price for a detached house in the city was $112,000. 

    In 1985, the Province of B.C. still collected data on foreign and corporate home purchases, so we would have thus known that our homeowners were tax-paying Canadian citizens and had purchased their first home for their growing family.

    In 1985, the housing market was just bouncing back from the crash of the early 1980’s, and Expo 86 hadn’t yet brought the world to our doorstep. Interest rates were cripplingly high, but our example family probably worked hard over the following decade, and maybe managed to save money to put their kids through university. 

    Perhaps fear of the past decade’s market crash had made the family risk adverse and reluctant to “trade up” as Vancouver’s housing market started along its steady exponential growth. Perhaps it was the scourge of leaky condos that had bankrupted many of their peers that left our couple skeptical about downsizing after the kids had left for college. Perhaps a reverse mortgage was secured to top up a meagre pension, or the comfort of familiarity helped mitigate the onset of senility.

    For whatever reason, our octogenarian has chosen to stay, be it in their Dunbar bungalow or two bedroom condo. It’s a stilted notion to suggest that they are staying in place because tax policies are subsidizing them to do so — they are able to stay in place because tax policies are protecting them from being forced out.

    The Property Tax Deferment Program exists to inure senior and/or disabled homeowners from market changes, when a fixed income likely means they wouldn’t be able to keep up with steadily increasing property assessment values and resultant property tax.

    These taxes aren’t being forgiven, they are being deferred to be paid on the ultimate sale of the home. 

    Should — as Ladner suggests — tax deferrals be means tested, consider residency history, and apply a more robust interest rate against the rebate at point of sale? Absolutely, but let’s be careful not to mischaracterize home-owning seniors as wealthy in the same breath as suggesting they are disadvantaging young families.

    Even without tax deferral, the market is squeezing young families out of the city. There is a certain irony that of all the other potential displacement factors: speculation, flipping, foreign investment and the luxury housing market — property tax deferment for seniors and disabled is the only one we are accurately tracking and monitoring. 

    It’s no secret that developers are running out of available land in Vancouver and that stagnant land is the antithesis of growth, so I’ll concede that there may be a very real business model to consider. If we want seniors to downsize and open up that market, let’s incentivize not penalize. And if we want to encourage housing affordability, let’s consider all the factors and enact sensible policies that will ensure housing for everyone in all stages of life.

    Originally published in Vancouver Courier

  • We must save Vancouver Community College and public adult education

    We must save Vancouver Community College and public adult education

    Like many Vancouverites, I owe a sincere debt of gratitude to VCC.

    I wrote my first lines of HTML code in a VCC classroom, allowing me to upgrade from print-focused graphics to remain successfully self-employed and engaged in newly emerging world of web design. During my lean years, the meat and baked goods shops at the downtown campus—serving deep discounted butchery and bakery student works—kept me well fed when I couldn’t afford much else. My wife successfully transitioned into a productive career thanks to the affordable and specialized skills upgrading she received at VCC almost twenty years ago.

    I have dozens, probably dozens of dozens of friends who have built careers and lives thanks to job-ready instruction in everything from auto mechanics to hair styling, culinary arts to music production, and health sciences to graphic design. Of course there are also the core, less specialized offerings: high school equivalency programs and English as a second language that have helped to integrate new Canadians, and prepare people for advanced training and schooling. For many years, the downtown VCC campus was one of the first points of contact for new Canadians struggling with language and poverty barriers in the DTES.

    With over one hundred degree, certificate, and diploma courses and some 22,000 students annually, VCC boasts an astonishing success rate: 93 percent of students are employed on graduation. For fifty years, VCC have been providing affordable services and education right here in East Vancouver and the Downtown Eastside.

    Despite the value VCC provides though, quietly the B.C. Liberal government have been laying off staff, making drastic cuts to core funding, replacing the board of governors, and removing 70 percent of VCC’s ESL seats. We’ve already lost the free ESL and adult upgrading courses that have allowed many of our city’s most vulnerable populations to improve their lives and employment prospects.

    It’s no secret that under our current provincial government, public education is under attack. Nowhere is that more apparent than here in East Van—where provincial ministry enrollment demands threaten to close primary and secondary schools, and a strangled budget has already led to clawbacks and closures of VSB adult education and ESL programs.

    Provincially-funded VCC is the only community college in East Vancouver and between its downtown and Broadway campuses, 25 percent of their students are upgrading their language skills to better integrate with our labour market. The majority of VCC students are new Canadians, and fully three quarters are women.

    At one point VCC ran the largest ESL program in Western Canada—so perhaps it’s no coincidence that the growth of the lucrative and under-regulated private language school market has coincided with the reduction in funding for these same yet considerably more affordable or formerly free programs at VCC.

    The bleeding of VCC over the last year has included staff lay-offs, cuts to the operating budget, review of programs with a mind to cuts or closure, a freeze in capital budget programs, and rumours of selling off and redevelopment the Downtown Eastside location. On September 16, the Save Our VCC coalition launched an off-campus community outreach to inform Vancouverites of exactly what’s at stake for affordable and public adult education in East Van: the quiet death of a thousand cuts.

    It is critical that we provide surety and confidence for present and future students of this vital and venerable institution. Let’s move the conversation out of the backrooms and have a full open and transparent conversation about the future of Vancouver Community College.

    — Originally Published in The Georgia Straight

  • Lower interest rates and housing affordability, more danger ahead?

    Lower interest rates and housing affordability, more danger ahead?

    This morning, as predicted, the Bank of Canada cut our interest rate by .05 per cent. Ostensibly, the move is to head off a recession — spurred mostly by slumping oil markets that have dampened Alberta’s economic outlook — lower interest rates mean Canadians will spend more.

    Lower interest rates also mean cheaper mortgage rates, which in turn will push up housing prices, particularly as investors look for safe places to park their money, like Vancouver.

    Canada isn’t the only large land mass nation faced with a recession though. China is experiencing an economic slowdown and an extremely volatile stock market, which will spur investors there to look for safe places to park their money, like Vancouver.

    While other Pacific Rim nations and states (Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, China) have shored up their real estate markets with tax and duty programs to protect housing stock for locals — British Columbia remains mired in a do-nothing holding pattern, citing insufficient data, lack of evidence, and possible impacts on existing homeowner equity.

    Meanwhile our housing bubble continues to grow, unfettered and unrestrained, waiting — like all bubbles do — to inevitably burst.

    I hate to sound like a broken record on this — but we need provincial leadership on this issue. Now.

    Over $1billion in provincial property transfer taxes are directed to general revenue rather than to affordable housing in the jurisdictions that are generating that wealth. Let’s take the advice of the BC Chamber of Commerce and others and fix our property transfer taxes, track corporate and foreign investment

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-13/china-may-tip-world-in…

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/08/china-stock-market-crisi…

    http://news.ubc.ca/2015/07/14/another-cut-to-canadas-interest-rate-could…

    https://www.biv.com/article/2015/7/vancouvers-housing-market-doesnt-need…

    http://www.straight.com/news/455161/pete-fry-tackling-roots-vancouvers-h…

    http://www.straight.com/news/478496/pete-fry-housing-crisis-failure-gove…

  • Thoughts on transit referendum

    Thoughts on transit referendum

    Thoughts on transit referendum: 

    Firstly, it never should have happened — an absolute abdication of leadership—doomed to failure from the start. We elect leaders to make the tough decisions, not pass the buck; and that is precisely what Christy Clark’s government did by putting our transit infrastructure investments to plebiscite. 

    There is plenty of blame to go around, though: I think the mayors’ plan lacked the credibility of real public consult (a high speed articulated bus line in tandem with intensified transit oriented development on the Drive.. seriously?), and the nagging suspicions of developer industry influence in civic politics clearly weighed heavily on the minds of many I spoke to. The mayors were equally culpable in politicizing the referendum and the reluctance to endorse their plan with a “yes” vote was the ensuing result for many voters (I note that more votes were cast for the Transit Referendum than in the civic election). 

    Jordan Bateman and his anti-taxxers did a good job of owning the opposition view — but while I personally feel that a consumption tax mightn’t have been our best option for funding (unless supplemented with generous rebates for low incomes), Bateman et al were disingenuous by not actually detailing the true costs of NOT investing in better transit (ie. GHGs, and literally slowing our economy with congestion). 

    And then of course, there is Translink — clearly an organization that requires more transparency and accountability. Let’s hope that at the very least, today’s NO vote will be taken as a signal that the governance of Translink desperately needs reform. 

    The blame game is moot though, first and foremost we never should have had a transit referendum(b) and for that I blame Christy Clark and her BC Liberals. 

    Read full BC Green Party media release below: 

    * *  

    [MEDIA RELEASE] B.C. Greens: Lack of leadership from B.C. Liberals in their Transit Plebiscite halts needed transportation investments
     For immediate releaseJuly 2, 2015 Victoria, B.C. – Matt Toner, B.C. Green Party Finance critic, says the B.C. Liberal government has displayed a lack of leadership in the Lower Mainland when it comes to critically important investments in public transportation. “If we want to create a sustainable society, we need to grapple with this region’s very real public transit problems,” said Toner. “The BC Liberals have passed the buck twice now: first, by referring a funding question to a regional plebiscite and then, once that failed to pass, kicking the responsibility to solve the problem down to municipalities.  Ducking hard decisions is not what we need from our elected representatives, but it seems to be the preferred strategy for this government.” After months of voting and ballot-counting, Elections BC today released the results of the B.C. Liberal Transportation and Transit Plebiscite. With 61.68% voting No and 38.32% voting Yes, the citizens of the Lower Mainland have overwhelmingly voted against a 0.5% increase in PST to pay for the Mayors’ Transportation and Transit Plan. Despite a number of new funding mechanisms advanced by the Mayors’ Council, the B.C. Liberal government unilaterally restricted the options to a regional PST increase. In a B.C. Liberal email that went out shortly before the vote count was released, the party’s Executive Director tried to pass responsibility on to the mayors, ignoring the heavy-handed role the provincial government has played so far and the clear provincial role in transportation financing. “This entire plebiscite process was designed to provide cover for the B.C. Liberals so that they didn’t have to make a tough decision,” said Pete Fry, the BC Green Party candidate in the forthcoming Vancouver–Mount Pleasant by-election. “Most people I’ve spoken with agree on the critical need for transit improvements in Metro Vancouver, but this process was needlessly politicized and opaque. Going forward it is clear that more authentic collaboration is needed between governments and the citizens they represent.  This should start with responding to the calls for governance reform in Translink.” “Alternative solutions exist, ” says Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party. “I’ve already talked about the option of increasing the carbon levy and directing the increased revenue to municipalities to fund crucial transit and infrastructure needs. It also seems clear to me that this turned out to be a referendum on Translink, not transit. Ultimately, a solution to the Translink problem might be to give back the autonomy that the mayors used to have when Translink was first created or roll Translink back into BC transit.” Vancouver is the most congested city in Canada, and the third most congested city in North America. Metro Vancouver is expecting an additional 1 million residents over the next 30 years. 

  • Housing crisis is a failure of government, not the fault of investors

    Housing crisis is a failure of government, not the fault of investors

    My name’s Pete Fry, and I’m the BC Green Party candidate in the provincial riding of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant—where we’ll be holding a special by-election to replace Jenny Kwan now that she is running in the federal election.

    Last year, I ran for Vancouver City Council, and while I wasn’t elected: I did receive a lot of votes, especially considering it was a low budget and non-developer funded campaign. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the campaign—I ran on issues of community, environment, transparency, and affordability.

    And it’s those same issues that bring us all here today.

    We’ve all heard anecdotes about global capital and foreign ownership. I recently wrote about the market externalities affecting my own community of Strathcona. A well-financed west-side investor set about purchasing a number of homes in the neighbourhood: in cash, with no subjects or conditions, and always over the asking price.

    Strathcona has a limited land base, maybe 350 detached homes in all, and this particular investor may have purchased a dozen of them—about 5 per cent.

    Coincidentally, five per cent is about the same number that the BC Real Estate Association claim as the relatively insignificant amount of foreign ownership in Vancouver. A little higher at 5.8 per cent is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s figure for percentage of foreign ownership in the downtown peninsula.

    Back in Strathcona, the effect of that five per cent unfettered non-local capital was to drive up the median home value, to the point that locals were priced out and the average house price increased with each bidding war. In turn, the increased demand for the limited stock of housing led to more speculation, and higher asking prices.

    A lot like Vancouver as a whole.

    In that respect, our real estate market is like a closed ecosystem. Finite resources exist in a delicate equilibrium; and externalities—in this case the influx of non local capital—can profoundly upset that balance, and lead to unintended consequences.

    Like that closed ecosystem analogy, the externalities are not unlike climate change, where even a few points of a degree of temperature increase can have catastrophic effects on weather, and aquaculture, and economic sustainability, and communities, and so on: a cascading litany of catastrophic consequences.

    Also like climate change, many of our leaders and those who are profiting from the status quo remain in denial about what is happening.

    That’s what we’re seeing today—externality driven housing prices profoundly out of synch with local incomes; the real threat of a generational brain drain and the inescapable conclusion that without intervention, our city is faced with severe social and economic consequences.

    For several years, respected urbanists and researchers have been warning of global capital upsetting our housing equilibrium. In the last several months, the BC Chamber of Commerce and VanCity Credit Union have cautioned that our affordability crisis is leading us to a dangerous and unsustainable future. Yet still, some in our government, development and real estate industries dismiss these concerns as at best anecdotal, at worst racist and xenophobic.

    Of course, racism, xenophobia and bigotry have no place in this important conversation, nor will they in the necessary solutions.

    As for anecdotes; it could be said that the antidote for the anecdote is data, and that’s true—but we also need action.

    Time is a luxury we do not have. We needed that data yesterday. Indeed a recent revelation in Douglas Todd’s Vancouver Sun blog: the former director of Land Titles revealed that we actually had that data yesterday—detailed information about corporate and foreign ownership in B.C. that was collected and stored for twenty years without any analysis. Even more shockingly, that data was apparently destroyed when they ran out of room to store it.

    Global real estate managers Knight Frank have named Vancouver a top property investment, they refer to it as a “safe haven market” for migrating wealth from economic or political crisis situations. Fund managers around the world are advising Vancouver is a great place to park your money, superior to gold and other commodities. As urbanist Andy Yan aptly describes it, we have become a hedge city.

    Around the Pacific Rim, similarly desirable global destinations have enacted protocols to leverage global investor capital and protect local populations: China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand—as of last month our region now stands virtually alone as an attractive target for the unfettered flow of global investment.

    This isn’t the fault of global investors—it’s the failure of local government.

    British Columbia collects some $1billion annually in property transfer taxes—taxes that are largely borne by our astronomical real estate prices, and at the expense of our local affordability.

    Those taxes go toward the province’s general revenue—when in fairness, they should be redirected back to the municipalities that are generating them. Let the municipalities determine how best to spend that revenue: in some cases it may be a rebate to encourage foreign investment, but in the case of Vancouver and our urban centres, I’d suggest it be channeled into affordable housing.

    That’s just one solution, one of a several we should be employing on a provincial level. Mayor Gregor Robertson and Bob Rennie’s recent suggestions of a speculator tax will be helpful in addressing the issue of quick-sale house flipping for profit. We also should be including a foreign investment duty, as well as a luxury property purchase duty as part of a robust toolkit of measures to protect our local affordability.

    If we look around at the pace of development in Vancouver, we see rezoning for more growth and densification as a means to extract Community Amenity Contributions. Increasingly as senior governments offload the responsibility of building housing, cities are turning to these contributions as a means to provide affordable housing. Last year in Vancouver, these CACs amounted to some $232 million—over half of which was directed to affordable housing, at the expense of things like parks and community centres.

    In order to extract Community Amenity Contributions to build affordable housing, the city must rezone the land and in the process increase it’s value—and thereby increasing the value of the surrounding area. It’s a process referred to as “land-lift” and precipitates a vicious cycle of higher prices for property in order to subsidize affordable housing that can’t possibly be built fast enough. It’s clear our city can’t go it alone—we need senior government intervention.

    Vancouver’s crisis of today is Victoria’s crisis of tomorrow, and quickly spreading to other regions of our province, particularly as Vancouverites are priced farther and farther out of the city. 

    Some will argue that any sort of market intervention may have deleterious effects on existing homeowner equity.

    I’d argue that gentle intervention now and on our terms is preferable to hard intervention that might come in the form of global collapse or rising interest rates that would find many Vancouverites dangerously overextended and risk a housing continuum that includes not just primary home ownership, but private rental stock as well. We don’t want to pop the bubble, just deflate it a little bit.

    This is why we elect governments, to provide sound fiscal management and regulation—not to operate hands-off like the Wild West.

    Today, gathering together, this movement is a good start, pressuring the political will to act and to respond. We need to keep up that pressure.

    We have a federal election coming—talk to your prospective MP. We need a national housing strategy. Let’s get the Government of Canada back into building housing.

    My by-election is in six months, but there will be a general provincial election in 2017. The province has the ability to leverage property taxes to protect and enhance affordable housing—we need to keep advocating for that.

    I’ll add one final notion to consider; while the grim prospects for middle class home ownership have captivated the media, galvanized the public, and panicked the politicians—for a number of Vancouverites, affordable home ownership will never be an option. For a number of Vancouverites, even secure affordable rental housing will never be an option. We all need to come together united to ensure housing justice for all Vancouverites. As they say: a rising tide lifts all boats.

    There’s a wonderfully pithy piece of public art just down the street, it was commissioned of artist Kathryn Walter by the Contemporary Art Gallery back in 1990. It’s a text-based work, fronting The Del Mar Hotel. The Del Mar is an affordable housing building that famously held out when BC Hydro was redeveloping that block in the 1980’s, and now sticks out like a quaint Edwardian brick anachronism, surrounded by glass and concrete towers. I use that image on my social media as a poignant reminder of what is at stake.

    It reads simply “Unlimited Growth Increases the Divide”.

    It was true then, it’s true now, and it will be true tomorrow—let’s not let it be our city’s epitaph.Postscript: 

    Originally published in the Georgia Straight, based on a speech prepared for rally at Library Square organized by Vancouverites for Affordable Housing.