If the government is going to get more involved, they should build more, not force owners to fix their prices in a volatile economy.
Instead, the rent should be managed by the markets, which will be beneficial to all renters if government built supply can beat the demand. We shouldn’t stop building until we reach such a point.
We also need policies for how many homes you can own, building more won’t help if they all turn into airBNB. Thankful BC halted airBNB unless it was also your primary home, we did see a flood of units back onto the market as “Investors” had to sell
They just stay at a hotel. Hotels had vacancies and some took on housing contracts for the unhoused. But we would have less unhoused if rent wasn’t more than wages
Do you have a source on that? In the beginning, airBNB was a new thing and was cheap as a result, but at this point it costs about as much as a hotel, and often requires busywork. That makes sense, a facility built for short-term stays should be more efficient.
The only way that could possibly add up is if the growth of airBNBs has vastly outstripped the growth of demand in BC, and nearly every person was going with airBNBs given a choice between the two.
People choose an airbnb because of convenience of laundry and food prep, but also you can sleep 6 in ê bedroom home for way less than hotel rate of 3 rooms.
But with that option restricted, tourists still tour.
Was 10% at that time, some kept operating, but BC has put together a plan to go after those still operating, so we will see more flood the market. And for 6 I meant when you have group travel and expect to hangout together. You can rent 6-8 capacity at 500 a day instead of hotel at 250-300 a day x 3 rooms.
I’ve heard that one of the reasons airBNB was successful wasn’t due to costs (outside of the initial burst) but because the sheer lack of hotels in many major cities. I do know that there is almost no hotels in downtown Toronto despite the sheer number of convention centres and tourist attractions. No way a tourist or business person is going to book a hotel on the edge of the city when everything they’re doing is in the downtown area.
This is another area that the NIMBYs have been screwing over people and certain groups have been discreetly taking advantage of people.
Either way, both problems would be solved quite easily if supply was simply greater. Hotels shouldn’t be blocked from being built where they’re needed the most, nor should any group have the power to block housing development unless if it’s actually unsafe to do so for some reason. This is why it’s actually cheaper to buy a house in downtown Tokyo than it is within 100km of Toronto. And I’m talking about a detached house in Tokyo, not a condo.
If the government is going to get more involved, they should build more, not force owners to fix their prices in a volatile economy.
Instead, the rent should be managed by the markets, which will be beneficial to all renters if government built supply can beat the demand. We shouldn’t stop building until we reach such a point.
We also need policies for how many homes you can own, building more won’t help if they all turn into airBNB. Thankful BC halted airBNB unless it was also your primary home, we did see a flood of units back onto the market as “Investors” had to sell
Hmm, I wonder how much tourism slowed down as a result. If the airBNBs were full those people must just be staying home now.
They just stay at a hotel. Hotels had vacancies and some took on housing contracts for the unhoused. But we would have less unhoused if rent wasn’t more than wages
Do you have a source on that? In the beginning, airBNB was a new thing and was cheap as a result, but at this point it costs about as much as a hotel, and often requires busywork. That makes sense, a facility built for short-term stays should be more efficient.
The only way that could possibly add up is if the growth of airBNBs has vastly outstripped the growth of demand in BC, and nearly every person was going with airBNBs given a choice between the two.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/short-term-rentals-back-long-term
People choose an airbnb because of convenience of laundry and food prep, but also you can sleep 6 in ê bedroom home for way less than hotel rate of 3 rooms. But with that option restricted, tourists still tour.
Oh, it’s just 10%. Well that makes sense in either case, then. The other airBNBs could probably absorb that on their own.
At the expense of privacy, and at a greater cost to the owners than 3 hotel rooms would be. Which is probably why it’s just 10%.
Was 10% at that time, some kept operating, but BC has put together a plan to go after those still operating, so we will see more flood the market. And for 6 I meant when you have group travel and expect to hangout together. You can rent 6-8 capacity at 500 a day instead of hotel at 250-300 a day x 3 rooms.
One airBNB whiner had 50 rental properties.
I’ve heard that one of the reasons airBNB was successful wasn’t due to costs (outside of the initial burst) but because the sheer lack of hotels in many major cities. I do know that there is almost no hotels in downtown Toronto despite the sheer number of convention centres and tourist attractions. No way a tourist or business person is going to book a hotel on the edge of the city when everything they’re doing is in the downtown area.
This is another area that the NIMBYs have been screwing over people and certain groups have been discreetly taking advantage of people.
Either way, both problems would be solved quite easily if supply was simply greater. Hotels shouldn’t be blocked from being built where they’re needed the most, nor should any group have the power to block housing development unless if it’s actually unsafe to do so for some reason. This is why it’s actually cheaper to buy a house in downtown Tokyo than it is within 100km of Toronto. And I’m talking about a detached house in Tokyo, not a condo.
TBF just getting the right to live in Japan is the hard part there, haha.