Jump to content

Maybe we should consider this here


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Property is way overvalued here keeping it out of the reach of young people. But which of us wants our own property to be worth less? That is the conundrum. I know a chap who complained bitterly about

Actually...we need 2000 houses here priced fairly.   A whole generation is currently out of the loop. And you expect that generation to pay your pension while you live in your own house?   Not...g

Could be a big big pin in the bubble they've contrived to justify their existence? A shrinking populace doesn't need an expanding Govt. Exactly the opposite. The proles might start asking questions..?

Actually...we need 2000 houses here priced fairly.

 

A whole generation is currently out of the loop. And you expect that generation to pay your pension while you live in your own house?

 

Not...going to happen mate.

 

Very true. The prices are just out of the price range of ordinary young people. Even those fortunate enough to manage to get a mortgage, have it as much as a noose around their neck because they've been taken into an inflated price system. A lot of people just pay huge private sector rents, or live in public sector housing. Instead of everyone teaming up to fight the deliberate inflation of our housing stock prices by self-serving business interests (it seriously has nothing to do with supply and demand; quite the opposite), we end up with many in the private sector hating those in the public sector, thinking the latter have it easier than them and that they're somehow subsidising it with their rates or taxes. It's a lie pushed by the political chattering class who are among the beneficiaries of this unsustainable and unequal economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe the government should try this here instead of just building houses we dont need

http://www.calgaryherald.com/vancouver+slaps+year+empty+homes+about/12372683/story.html

 

 

I think we should do it in Strand Street commercial properties as a test trial. :) There you can see the perfect example of deliberately keeping shops empty rather than reducing prices, as they know this would have a knock on effect for residential housing, and then the game would be up for the businesses involved in the production and selling of new properties.

 

As for the tax mentioned in the article, I'm not sure I'd support this in terms of residential properties --- not without a list of reasonable exceptions. I'd be more inclined to put a tax on slum landlords who refuse to keep their property to a respectable quality standard despite raking in huge amounts of money over the years. That is, if we can ever bypass the enormous power and influence over our elected officials by a certain landlords' association who have for decades blocked attempts to bring in quality standards.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always very wary of an ownership tax. There are many reasons a home might be empty yet they always go for the easiest option = rich bastard so we'll tax them so we can be seen to be correcting all society's ills.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Property is way overvalued here keeping it out of the reach of young people. But which of us wants our own property to be worth less? That is the conundrum. I know a chap who complained bitterly about his kids not being able to afford a house, but when he came to sell he was insistent on not reducing the very high asking price. "I'm not giving it away!"

 

It's like complaining about there being too many vehicles on the road - except yours of course.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

maybe the government should try this here instead of just building houses we dont need

http://www.calgaryherald.com/vancouver+slaps+year+empty+homes+about/12372683/story.html

 

 

I think we should do it in Strand Street commercial properties as a test trial. smile.png There you can see the perfect example of deliberately keeping shops empty rather than reducing prices, as they know this would have a knock on effect for residential housing, and then the game would be up for the businesses involved in the production and selling of new properties.

 

As for the tax mentioned in the article, I'm not sure I'd support this in terms of residential properties --- not without a list of reasonable exceptions. I'd be more inclined to put a tax on slum landlords who refuse to keep their property to a respectable quality standard despite raking in huge amounts of money over the years. That is, if we can ever bypass the enormous power and influence over our elected officials by a certain landlords' association who have for decades blocked attempts to bring in quality standards.

 

 

 

the problem with slum landlords is they have slum tenants who given a palace would have it turned into a pig sty in short order.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you pay water rates on an empty property? If not, why not? It rains on a property, lived in/worked in or not. Unless it goes to a soak-away it gets treated at other property owners expenses.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone known the % of unoccupied dwellings on the Island - I hear figures of some 16% banded about which seems very high - the last census was supposed to reveal such details but it appears here that many did not bother to return their forms and all has gone quiet.

Edited by Frances
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone known the % of unoccupied dwellings on the Island - I hear figures of some 16% banded about which seems very high - the last census was supposed to reveal such details but it appears here that many did not bother to return their forms and all has gone quiet.

I know. Just had my letter wanting to know if I've got any unaccounted for kids. Next will be unaccounted for pensioners and unaccounted for working ages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you pay water rates on an empty property? If not, why not? It rains on a property, lived in/worked in or not. Unless it goes to a soak-away it gets treated at other property owners expenses.

All rates are payable as long as its fit for habitation. Doesn't matter if it's lived in or not. If no services ,gas electricity and running water and I Think hot water then rate rebate or zero rates can be given

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...