A 1200sqft bungalow across the street from me sold for $2.8mm four months ago; it's now back on the market for $3.2mm.
That's incredibly frustrating, I get that. I'd love to live in the Bay Area again, but it's too expensive to be worth it to me.
What you're describing is a classic bubble. Speculation divorced from the underlying asset value. Presumably not enough Vancouverites would think that $3.2mm for a 1200 sg ft house is worth it to keep that value there. So it's temporary and will eventually pop. Bubbles hurt a lot of people while they run up and when they pop, but it's not clear that price controls do anything other than shift the pain elsewhere, usually while making it worse. I'd rather try and understand what's driving the underlying bubble and fix that if we can. The vacancy is a symptom, not a cause. That said, that's probably not something Vancouver can deal with directly, as it seems more tied to global macroeconomic conditions.
> I'd rather try and understand what's driving the underlying bubble and fix that if we can
Foreign real estate investment? Driven by economic forces in foreign countries? I don't know if you can really "fix" that, but you can sure as hell tax it while it's happening. And 1% isn't bad at all if the houses are gaining that much in value over such a short period of time. Whoever's flipping these is certainly beating inflation still.
EDIT: Read some more comments, particularly emptybits':
> It's an experiment. Much like our recent 15% foreign buyers tax reported a few months ago. We're all watching the experiment. Perhaps our role is to serve as a lesson to other cities?
So it seems as though they are trying to curtail the bubble caused by foreign influence, and my comment about "fix"ing it was made in ignorance.
However, I still think it makes sense to tax both ends of the spectrum...the buyer tax limits new purchases, the "living here" tax limits houses already bought.
That's incredibly frustrating, I get that. I'd love to live in the Bay Area again, but it's too expensive to be worth it to me.
What you're describing is a classic bubble. Speculation divorced from the underlying asset value. Presumably not enough Vancouverites would think that $3.2mm for a 1200 sg ft house is worth it to keep that value there. So it's temporary and will eventually pop. Bubbles hurt a lot of people while they run up and when they pop, but it's not clear that price controls do anything other than shift the pain elsewhere, usually while making it worse. I'd rather try and understand what's driving the underlying bubble and fix that if we can. The vacancy is a symptom, not a cause. That said, that's probably not something Vancouver can deal with directly, as it seems more tied to global macroeconomic conditions.