TorontoRealtyBlog

Once upon a time, I would pen a “Friday Rant” or a “Monday Morning Quarterback,” hit Publish, and just sit back and relax.

Those were the days.

Am I getting saltier, angrier, and more out of touch with the readership, or has the readership simply expanded and evolved?

The whole purpose of TRB, from the very get-go, was to think different, be different, and act different, and within all this, was to express myself however I saw fit.

Discussing politics is always a sticky subject, and when you consider that no election has ever resulted in one party receiving 100.00% of the vote (at least outside of North Korea, China, or Russia…) , I suppose it’s fair to assume that no matter what is thought, written, or spoken about politics will always result in dissent.

But today, I’m doubling-down!

Today, I feel like the general thoughts expressed in this blog will be met with 100% support!

Perhaps the path I take to get there and the examples used might still result in dissent, and some of my eventual conclusions like, “Canadians are so willing and ready to give up their rights and freedoms” will undoubtedly result in pushback, but alas, you can’t win ’em all…

Much has been made of our “housing crisis” in Toronto, Ontario, and essentially across the entire country.

It’s been going on for over a decade, and multiple politicians at all three levels of government have offered their “solutions” at times, with varying ideas, at various times.

We’ve spent time looking at the demand side of the problem, with the Bank of Canada and CMHC enacting legislation to attempt to reduce demand in the marketplace.

And of course, we’re now spending time looking at the supply side of the problem, with every level of government talking about “doubling” housing output, or building 1.5 Million new homes in ten years, or whatever other impossible “solutions” are being offered.

You’ve heard my thoughts on all of the above for quite some time now.  And by “thoughts” I suppose I’m being polite.  My frustration, my disdain, my complete and utter disbelief, and so on.

But there’s one such “solution” that I find the most offensive and the fact that many people in society are on board with this is so disheartening.

But first, this…

Last month, my golf clubs were stolen.  It sucked.  Not just because of the cost to replace them, which is probably triple what I spent on them over the years, but also because of everything that was in that bag.  For example, I lost my ball-marker, which wasn’t a piece of plastic but rather an ancient Roman coin that bought at a flea market when I was a kid and have used to mark my ball on every green for almost thirty years.  My Scotty Cameron putter was also the first big purchase of my adult life back in the year 2000, and I’ve used it religiously since then.

I was in my office one day telling my team about how my clubs were stolen and somebody across the office, to whom I wasn’t speaking, chimed in and said, “You can afford to buy new clubs.”

Man, I really, really hate that line of thinking.

There’s an undertone of justification in that thought.  It’s as though a crime or simply a “wrong” can be justified depending on the situation and the individuals involved.  That’s a very, very slippery slope, as we’ve seen before when the pendulum swings the other way.

When the Titanic sub disaster dominated the news cycle last month, I was shocked and, again, disheartened to see so many people lacking sympathy for those who died, many of them acting as though those who died somehow “deserved it.”  There was this undertone of “serves them right” because they had the means to pay $250,000 for an underwater trip, or because the 16-year-old had the audacity to be born into a wealthy family, or because several men founded and operated successful businesses and profited from them.

“Stupid billionaires,” went the logic.

The world is changing at a faster pace than many of us can keep up with, and I’m constantly amazed by the sentiments expressed by certain segments of society that are stripping away at values that we used to hold near and dear.

Now, it seems that the ire of many in society is pointed at the most vulnerable members of our communities, who are seemingly ready to be punished for living freely, quietly, deservedly, and comfortably.

A few weeks ago, I read this article in the newspaper:

“Unable To Downsize, More Seniors Are Living In Larger Homes With Empty Bedrooms”
The Globe & Mail
July 5th, 2023

It was disgusting.

Right from the get-go, where the headline said “unable to downsize,” which infers that every senior wants to downsize, I knew where this was heading.

Because it’s not “unable” that many people lament, but rather “unwilling.”

As I remarked at the onset, I really, truly believe that there’s no other place in the world than where we live in Canada, where people are so ready and willing to give up their rights and freedoms.

“Rights and freedoms” sounds American.  It sounds Tea-Party-esque, so I’m opening myself to a strawman argument in opposition, here but let’s not lose sight of the thesis:

No person should be in any way forced, coerced, or taxed into leaving their home.

Especially not one of our most vulnerable populations.

Especially not those who have worked, paid taxes, paid proverbial dues, and now are living out their Golden Years and Sunset Years.

When I wrote about Oliva Chow’s plan to enact the first right of refusal on residential property sales in Toronto, some of the TRB readers took issue with the fact that I was complaining about something that had yet to happen, or that I was acting like it’s a foregone conclusion.

But the point missed was that once you open a door, it’s impossible to close.

I would not put it past a Mayor, say, ten years from now to use that power in a very different way from which it was intended, not to mention that, according to one mortgage broker on Twitter last week (I searched for the comment but could not find it), Ms. Chow would like this fund to represent the ability to purchase as much as 12% of the sum total of real estate transactions in Toronto every year.

So again, tell me that I’m overreacting to the concept of the uproar over seniors living in “underused” houses, but I’m telling you, if we open that door, I really, truly fear where it’s going to lead.

From the article:

“It does speak to the underuse of housing. The question is what do you do about it and what can you do about it,” said Aled ab Iorwerth, deputy chief economist with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., the federal housing agency.

“The concern is maybe the people with all these spare bedrooms would like to move somewhere in their community but there is nowhere more suitable for them to live in,” he said.

What does “underuse” mean?

And who gets to define “underuse?”

If a senior lives in alone a four-bedroom house, who says what uses are appropriate?

Bedroom #1: Primary bedroom
Bedroom #2: Guest room for grandchildren
Bedroom #3: Computer room, sewing machine, arts/crafts/easel, family photos
Bedroom #4: “Den” for the television, a la 1976.

Who’s going to stand up and tell a 75-year-old home-owner, in their 35th year of owning this house, having paid income tax for 58 years, that this house is “underused” and that it’s unjust?

That question is supposed to be rhetorical, but sadly it’s not.  Because there are a lot of people that would claim this house is “underused” and that sickens me.

It sickens me in the same way that people suggest, “Jeff Bezos should have his wealth taken away.  Nobody needs all that.”

This might be true, but Jeff Bezos’ wealth belongs to Jeff Bezos.  It’s his.  He created it.

Who gets the final say?

In the absence of God, I don’t know that that right should be given.

From the article:

“It appears to be too many rooms for too few people,” said Mathieu Laberge, who helped implement the country’s federal program to improve housing and is now an adviser with KPMG consultancy.

Who defines “too many rooms?”

Should we force seniors from their 3-bedroom homes and into rooms into 150 square foot rooms in nursing homes?

The article mentions, “Policy experts and large city mayors are not suggesting that seniors should rent out their rooms en masse to better use the extra space,” but the undertone of the article suggests exactly that.

You can’t write and opine, on and on, that there’s too much “underused” housing via seniors, then take it back and say, “Oh, no, we’re not suggesting you need to leave…”

The “Vacant Home Tax” was the first shot across the bow here.

And a future “Underused Housing Tax” could be the second.

Oh yes, I’m aware that there’s already a tax called the “Underused Housing Tax,” which is defined as follows:

The Underused Housing Tax is an annual 1% tax on the ownership of vacant or underused housing in Canada that took effect on January 1, 2022. The tax usually applies to non-resident, non-Canadian owners. In some situations, however, it also applies to Canadian owners.

The intent of this tax is certainly not to penalize seniors for living alone in 6-bedroom houses.

But when will it be?

I know, I know, you think I’m being an alarmist.

My opponents will liken this to my suggestion that Olivia Chow’s “right of first refusal” could destroy the housing market.

But anything short of blind, wilful loyalty to a government for having the population’s absolute best interests at heart must make you consider it, no?

I’m reminded of an interview that Finance Minister Chyrstia Freeland did back in December of 2020.

In that interview, she talked about the economic recovery ahead and talked about “unlocking” Canadians’ savings, which many people, myself included, took to mean that she simply wanted their money.

Here’s her quote:

“Some Canadian households, and it tends to be the better-off households, do have quite a lot of money that they’ve saved because there hasn’t been much to do in the pandemic and certainly it would be great if that money could go toward driving our recovery and I want to make an offer now to all of your listeners: if people have ideas on how the government can act to help unlock that pre-loaded stimulus, I am very, very interested.”

Yeah, no kidding you’re “interested.”

There’s a lot to pay for after the federal government has spent money like drunken sailors over the past three years, so “unlocking” that “underused” wealth is a solution.

So too, however, is “unlocking” that underused housing that seniors are holding onto as tightly as the neat fold in their shirts after hours of Sunday laundry.

Here are a couple of choice comments in response to the Globe & Mail article:

Re: “More seniors are living in larger homes with empty bedrooms” (Globe and Mail)

Suggesting that I, or anyone else, should vacate my home to accommodate the government’s increasing immigration levels, is infuriating.

These are our homes. This is where we worked our lives to live.

We will leave when we’re ready, and not a second before.

The “housing crisis” is not ours.

Dianne Aziz Kingston

Are we really at the stage where people with a spare bedroom — in their own homes — are labelled “overhoused?

Let people live as they want and show that we still respect a free society.

Rob Konduros Cambridge, Ont.

I couldn’t possibly agree more.

Whether the housing crisis is being created by or exacerbated by the increasing immigration levels, is either here nor there.

It doesn’t matter what the cause of the housing crisis is.

In fact, it doesn’t matter how bad the housing crisis gets.

At no point, ever, should seniors be forced or coerced to leave their homes, nor should they be disincentivized from staying…

The post Monday Morning Quarterback: Forcing Seniors From Their Homes Isn’t The Answer! appeared first on Toronto Realty Blog.